Title: Long v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 685, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 3, 2003

1The Court sua sponte assigned a pseudonym to the appellant, who is a minor,
pursuant to SUPR. CT. R. 7(d).
2DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 611(1) (“A person is guilty of assault in the third degree
when: . . . [t]he person intentionally or recklessly causes physical injury to another person.
. . .”)  
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JESSICA LONG,1
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 685, 2002
§
§
§  Court Below—Family Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  File No. 02050-16-246
§
§
Submitted: June 13, 2003
  Decided:   July 3, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 3rd day of July 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief
filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw,
and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Jessica Long, was charged with  Assault
in the Third Degree, a misdemeanor.2  On October 23, 2002, she was
3DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 1009.
4Long also was required to undergo a psychological evaluation, pay restitution to the
victim, submit a letter of apology to the victim, take all of her medications as prescribed,
have no contact with the victim, and attend school.
5Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83(1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin,
486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
-2-
adjudicated delinquent by a Family Court judge3 and sentenced to a period of
commitment, to be suspended for 18 months of Level II supervision.4  This is
Long’s direct appeal.
(2)
Long’s trial counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  The standard and scope of review applicable to the
consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule
26(c) is twofold: (a) the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made
a conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims that could
arguably support the appeal; and (b) the Court must conduct its own review of
the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least
arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary
presentation.5
(3)
Long’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter,
Long’s counsel informed Long of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided her
6The Quest Academy is an alternative school for troubled youth.
-3-
with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief and the
complete trial transcript.  Long was also informed of her right to supplement
her attorney’s presentation.  Long responded with a brief that raises one issue
for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken
by Long’s counsel as well as the issue raised by Long and has moved to affirm
the Family Court’s judgment.
(4)
Long raises one issue for this Court’s consideration.  She claims
that the Family Court improperly admitted hearsay medical evidence regarding
the cause of the victim’s herniated disc, which was prejudicial to her case.
Long requests that the matter be remanded for a new trial.
(5)
At the time of the incident, Long was a student at the Quest
Academy in Newark, Delaware.6  Caroline Kurtz worked as a teacher at the
school.  On May 22, 2002, Kurtz and Long were in the principal’s office on
separate business.  The principal asked Kurtz to remain with Long in the office
while he stepped out.  Soon thereafter, Long walked out of the office without
permission, searching for a way out of the building.  In accordance with school
policy, Kurtz followed Long and verbally directed her to return to the office.
-4-
(6)
At some point, there was some degree of physical contact  between
Long and Kurtz.  Kurtz testified that she became alarmed when Long stated she
was going outside with the intention of being hit by a car and positioned herself
between Long and an exit door.  She testified that Long then “put her elbow
and her arm into my chest and forc[ed] me back into the wall to get past me and
my shoulder and my back hit the wall.”  Kurtz denied having any prior physical
contact with Long, apart from placing her hand on Long’s shoulder to comfort
her.  After Kurtz hit the wall, the science instructor came out of his classroom
and took control of the situation.  
(7)
Kurtz immediately went to the school nurse’s office where, she
testified, she was “so much in pain I was crying.”  The social studies assistant
drove her to Omega Medical Center.  Still in pain, Kurtz returned to Omega
Medical Center the next day, where she had an x-ray and her arm was placed
in a sling.  As time went on, the pain increased and, on July 8, 2002, Kurtz went
to the emergency room where she had an MRI.  The MRI revealed a “severe
herniated disk” in her back, which was removed during emergency surgery.
Kurtz testified that, as of the date of the trial, she was still in pain and had been
told she might have permanent nerve damage.  At the end of her testimony, the
-5-
Family Court judge asked Long if the herniated disk had been caused by the
force of being pushed into the wall.  In response, Kurtz stated as follows:
From what I am told the syndrome that I have is called cauda
equine syndrome and it’s extremely rare . . . it’s not a naturally
occurring condition in a twenty-six year old. . . .  So, it’s my
understanding that [the incident with Long is] what caused it and
the letter from the Doctor . . . states that as well.
Defense counsel did not object to this testimony.  
(8)
A former student from the Quest Academy testified next.  She
stated that she witnessed the incident and that both Kurtz and Long fell into a
door as Long was struggling to break free from Kurtz’s grasp.  She agreed that
Long pushed Kurtz with her arm and that is why Kurtz hit the door.  
(9)
Long herself also testified.  She admitted that she had left the
school grounds on two previous occasions and had been disciplined for doing
so.  She admitted that she pushed Kurtz with her elbow, but stated that she did
not harm Kurtz intentionally.  She wanted only to “get away” from Kurtz, who
had grabbed both of Long’s arms and pulled them behind her and was trying
to drag her back to the principal’s office.   
(10)
In order to prove the elements of assault in the third degree the
State was required to demonstrate that Long “intentionally or recklessly caused
physical injury to another person.”  The testimony presented at trial, including
7Monroe v. State, 652 A.2d 560, 563 (Del. 1995).
8Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986).
-6-
that from Long herself, clearly was sufficient to satisfy the State’s burden, even
without the specific testimony of which Long complains.7  Thus, even assuming
it was erroneous for the Family Court to elicit statements from Kurtz
concerning what her doctor told her about the cause of her injuries, any such
error was harmless.  Moreover, under a plain error analysis, we do not find that
the alleged error was so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize
the fairness and integrity of the trial process.8    
(11)
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded
that Long’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue.  We are also satisfied that Long’s counsel has made a
conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that
Long could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm
is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion
to withdraw is moot.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
Chief Justice
-7-