Title: Haley v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 28, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 30, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JASON HALEY,1  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  No. 28, 2012 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§  Court Below – Family Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§  in and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  Case No. 1112001580 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
 
 
    Submitted:  August 22, 2012 
 
 
 
 
       Decided:  August 30, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 30th day of August, 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
1) 
The defendant-appellant, Jason Haley (“Haley”) appeals from 
his adjudication of delinquency on one count of Offensive Touching, after a 
bench trial in the Family Court.  On appeal, Haley claims that there was 
insufficient evidence to find him guilty of Offensive Touching.  We have 
concluded that claim is without merit.  Therefore, the judgment of the 
Family Court is affirmed. 
 
2) 
On December 2, 2011, Haley along with several other males 
confronted the victim while he was walking home from his school bus stop.  
                                          
 
1 A pseudonym was assigned pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 
 
One member of Haley’s group told the victim to empty his pockets.  As the 
victim tried to walk away, Haley grabbed his arms, said “go back,” and 
pushed the victim backward.  Another member of Haley’s group then 
punched the victim several times, after which the victim dropped his book 
bag, ran home, and a family member called the police.   
3) 
On December 5, 2011, Haley was arrested.  He was initially 
charged with Attempted Robbery in the Second Degree, Conspiracy in the 
Second Degree, and Offensive Touching.  Because he was a juvenile, Haley 
was prosecuted in Family Court.  Following a bench trial, the Family Court 
dismissed the robbery and conspiracy charges, but found Haley guilty of 
Offensive Touching.  This appeal followed. 
4) 
Haley claims that the Family Court erred by convicting him of 
Offensive Touching, because he was acquitted of the attempted robbery 
charge and the evidence did not show that Haley knowingly caused “offense 
or alarm” to the victim by touching him.  We review de novo a claim that the 
evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to support either a 
conviction or an adjudication of delinquency.2   
5) 
The claims in Haley’s brief are set forth in a conclusory 
manner.  Each “substantive” legal argument is a short paragraph and, 
                                          
 
2 Carter v. State, 933 A.2d 774, 777 (Del. 2007). 
3 
 
together, they take up one page.  His first claim is that, because the 
Offensive Touching charge “is based on the same action as” the robbery 
charge, that charge “too, should have been dismissed.”  Haley does not make 
a specific legal argument explaining why that charge “too, should have been 
dismissed.”  His conclusory assertion fails to raise an adjudicable legal issue 
on appeal. 
6) 
Haley’s second claim—that there was insufficient record 
evidence to support his delinquency adjudication for Offensive Touching is 
also without merit.  Haley does not dispute that he was part of a group that 
confronted the victim to rob him.  By his own admission, Haley “grabbed” 
the victim and “pushed him aside” after another member of the group 
ordered the victim to “run [his] pockets.”  Others in the group then punched 
the victim and searched his pockets.  Haley’s insistence that “his [true] 
intention was to assist [the victim]” does not change those undisputed facts, 
which were sufficient to establish Haley’s knowledge that the 
“[i]ntentional[] touch[ing] . . . [was] likely to cause offense or alarm to [the 
victim,]” as required to prove Offensive Touching.3  Thus, this claim also 
lacks merit. 
 
 
                                          
 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 601(a)(1)(2007). 
4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment 
of the Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice