Title: Sims v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 25, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LEROY JEFFREY SIMS, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 80, 2007 
 
Defendant Below-   
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
§ 
ID # 0512021058 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 13, 2007 
   Decided:  July 25, 2007 
 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
This 25th day of July 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
(1)  
Appellant Leroy Sims appeals his Superior Court convictions of 
Resisting Arrest, Tampering with Physical Evidence, Maintaining a Vehicle for 
keeping Controlled Substances and two counts of Possession of Cocaine.  Sims 
argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions.  
We find no merit to his argument and affirm. 
 2
(2)  
On December 31, 2005, Officers Fritz Feldmann and Joseph Wyka of 
the New Castle County Police Department noticed a suspicious vehicle parked 
with its lights off and motor running at the Spring Run Apartment complex.  The 
officers approached the vehicle and saw two men sitting inside.  Officer Feldmann 
went to the passenger’s side and asked the passenger for his name.  The passenger, 
later identified as Sims, indicated by pointing at a soda can that he could not 
answer because his mouth was full.  Officer Feldmann allowed Sims a few seconds 
to swallow and respond, but when Sims refused, Officer Feldmann ordered him to 
open his mouth.  Sims complied, and Officer Feldmann saw a “whitish liquid.” 
(3)  
The two men were then asked to exit the vehicle and were patted 
down for officer safety.  During the pat down, Officer Feldmann felt, and 
subsequently removed, a small bag of white powder from Sims’ pant pocket and 
placed it on the trunk of the vehicle.  Officer Feldmann then turned away as 
another officer was arriving at the scene.  When he looked back, the bag was gone.  
Officer Feldmann testified that his attention was diverted for no longer than a 
minute. 
(4)  
Sims initially denied taking the bag, but then told the officers that he 
thought he was going to vomit.  Sims proceeded to spit a white foamy substance on 
the ground and then admitted that he swallowed the contents of the bag: one-half 
 3
grams of cocaine.  Officers Welch and Wyka also testified that Sims admitted to 
consuming one-half gram of cocaine. 
(5)  
Officer Welch conducted a field test on the white foamy substance 
Sims had spit on the ground.  Welch testified that it tested positive for cocaine.  
Welch, however, did not keep the reagent kit used to test the substance. 
(6)  
Sims was indicted on February 6, 2006 and a jury trial began on 
September 7, 2006.  The jury found Sims guilty of all charges except for 
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.  Sims moved for judgment of acquittal, but the 
motion was denied. 
(7)  
Sims argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence from 
which the jury could find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because it failed to 
show both when the cocaine was consumed and that the substance in the bag was 
indeed cocaine.  We review challenges to the sufficiency of evidence to determine 
“whether a rational trier of fact, considering the evidence in the light most 
favorable to the prosecution, could find the essential elements of the offense 
beyond a reasonable doubt.”1  In doing so, the Court does not distinguish between 
direct and circumstantial evidence.2 
                                          
 
1 Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236, 238 (Del. 2005). 
2 Skinner v. State, 575 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Del. 1990). 
 4
(8)  
This Court held in Seward v. State3 that scientific testing is not 
required to support a drug conviction.  The Court explained, “[i]n view of the 
limitations that [requiring scientific evidence] would place on prosecutors, and in 
accordance with general evidentiary principles . . . the [State] may establish the 
identity of a drug through cumulative circumstantial evidence.”4  Thus, 
circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support such a conviction.  “Under our 
process the trier of fact takes into consideration all of the circumstances 
surrounding an alleged crime to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support 
the conviction.”5     
(9)  
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, 
showed that Sims consumed cocaine as the police approached his car.  Sims had a 
“whitish liquid” in his mouth.  In addition, Officer Feldmann found a small bag 
containing a white powder substance.  That bag was packaged the same way 
cocaine is often packaged.  That package quickly disappeared from the top of the 
truck when Officer Feldmann diverted his attention.  Most damaging to Sims, 
however, is his confession, heard by three officers, that he consumed the contents 
of that bag, a half gram of cocaine, in order to avoid further trouble.  Based upon 
                                          
 
3 723 A.2d 365 (Del. 1999). 
4 Id. at 370 (quoting United States v. Schrock, 855 F.2d 327, 334 (1988)). 
5 Id. 
 5
the evidence presented, a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of 
each offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice