Title: Caldwell v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 17, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
FRED T. CALDWELL,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 12, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for Kent County  
   Cr. A. Nos. IK02-11-0188-0190 
                      
 
Submitted: October 29, 2004  
Decided:    December 17, 2004   
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 17th day of December 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Fred T. Caldwell, was found guilty by a 
Superior Court jury of Trafficking in Cocaine, Delivery of Cocaine and Conspiracy 
in the Second Degree.  He was sentenced as an habitual offender1 to 2 terms of 
imprisonment for life at Level V and an additional 2 years of Level V 
imprisonment.2   
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(b) (2001). 
2 After Caldwell’s direct appeal was filed by his counsel, Caldwell moved for leave to proceed 
pro se.  Following an evidentiary hearing in the Superior Court, this Court granted Caldwell’s 
motion by Order dated July 16, 2004. 
 
 
-2-
 
(2) 
Prior to trial, Caldwell moved to suppress two videotaped interviews 
with the police on the ground that the videotapes, which were approximately three 
and a half hours long, contained four gaps where the tape was stopped and then 
restarted.  Caldwell argued that the four gaps constituted “missing evidence” that 
the State was obligated to preserve.  The State argued that the tape had been 
stopped during breaks in the interviews in order to save tape.  At the hearing on the 
motion to suppress, Caldwell testified that, during the gaps, he denied being a drug 
dealer.  The police testified that Caldwell made no such statements.  The Superior 
Court found the police testimony to be credible and, on that basis, determined that 
no exculpatory evidence was missing from the videotape.  The Superior Court 
denied Caldwell’s request for a “missing evidence” jury instruction and denied his 
motion to suppress. 
 
(3) 
 The testimony presented at trial established the following:  On the 
evening of June 25, 2002, Caldwell and his cousin, Warner Henry, were visiting at 
the home of Colleen Thompson at 266 Richard Bassett Road in the Rodney Village 
subdivision south of Dover, Delaware.  At approximately 10:00 p.m., a man 
Thompson did not recognize knocked on the front door.  When no one answered 
the front door, the man began breaking through the back door.  Caldwell told 
Henry to retrieve a handgun that was located in the house.  Caldwell escaped by 
 
 
-3-
jumping out of a front window and running across the street.  He ran to a nearby 
house where he called the Delaware State Police to report the break-in.  The 
intruder entered the house and started beating Henry, who eventually was able to 
escape by climbing out a bathroom window.       
 
(4) 
The police were notified about the break-in at approximately 10:15 
p.m.  Detective William Porter and Corporal Robert Wallace were assigned to the 
case.  As Wallace drove through the Rodney Village subdivision looking for the 
intruder, he encountered a man running toward him who matched the intruder’s 
description.  As the man approached Wallace’s car, Wallace jumped out and 
grabbed him.  Wallace found a plastic baggie containing what appeared to be crack 
cocaine in the man’s right front pocket and a scale in the man’s left front pocket.  
The man, who was later identified as Warner Henry, had a bleeding head wound.   
 
(5) 
Caldwell telephoned Thompson, who reported that Henry had been 
hurt and that the police had found drugs in Henry’s pocket.  Caldwell agreed to be 
interviewed by the police and Thompson drove him to Delaware State Police 
Troop 3.  Thompson and Caldwell arrived at the troop between 12:00 midnight and 
12:30 a.m.  At the troop, Porter interviewed Caldwell about the incident.  During 
the interview, which was videotaped, Caldwell told Porter that Henry and he had 
been out delivering drugs in the Capitol Park area of Dover earlier in the day.  
 
 
-4-
Caldwell also told Porter that, at the time of the break-in, he had between $2, 000 
and $3,000 in cash in his pocket.   
 
(6) 
After hearing about Caldwell’s drug dealing, Porter contacted two of 
the Drug Unit detectives at Troop 3, Donald Boulerice and David Ellingsworth.  
Detective Ellingsworth interviewed Caldwell during the early morning of June 26, 
2002.  This interview also was videotaped.  During the interview, Caldwell 
admitted to Ellingsworth that he had given a half ounce of cocaine to Henry the 
day before the break-in, that he owned the handgun he told Henry to retrieve, and 
that he had $3,000 and 4 ounces of crack cocaine in his possession at the time of 
the break-in.  Caldwell also stated that he “moved” one to two kilograms of 
cocaine per week.   
 
(7) 
Detective Boulerice interviewed Henry, who told Boulerice that at the 
time of the break-in he had some crack cocaine in his possession which he had 
obtained from Caldwell and for which he owed Caldwell $950.   Henry told 
Boulerice that Caldwell sold approximately 3 kilograms of cocaine per week.  At 
trial, Henry claimed that what he told Boulerice during the interview was false.  He 
also testified that he had pleaded guilty to conspiring with Caldwell to traffic in 
cocaine.   
 
 
-5-
 
(8) 
Caldwell testified in his own behalf at trial.  He acknowledged that he 
previously had been convicted of drug trafficking and possession with intent to 
deliver illegal drugs, but denied that he was currently a drug dealer.  Caldwell 
claimed that he had only pretended to be a big time drug dealer in the interview 
because Ellingsworth said Henry had sustained potentially fatal injuries and 
Caldwell was concerned about being charged with Henry’s homicide if he did not 
tell Ellingsworth what he wanted to hear.    
 
(9) 
In this appeal, Caldwell claims that: a) the Superior Court should have 
given a jury instruction regarding missing evidence based on gaps in his 
videotaped interview or, in the alternative, should have suppressed the videotaped 
interview; and b) the prosecutor violated his constitutional rights when he 
characterized Henry as Caldwell’s “codefendant” in his closing statement.   
 
(10) When the State is charged with failure to preserve evidence that could 
be favorable to the defendant, the court must engage in an analysis that draws a 
balance between the nature of the State’s conduct and the degree of prejudice to 
the defendant.3  If the State is found to be responsible for the loss of evidence, due 
process may require a jury instruction stating that the defendant is entitled to an 
inference that the missing evidence would have been exculpatory.4   
                                                 
3 Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81, 87 (Del. 1990). 
4 Id. at 90. 
 
 
-6-
 
(11) Based upon the testimony presented at Caldwell’s pretrial suppression 
hearing, the Superior Court found that Caldwell’s claim of missing evidence was 
not credible.  That determination is supported by competent evidence and is not 
clearly erroneous.5  We, therefore, affirm that finding and, on that basis, further 
affirm the Superior Court’s rulings that no missing evidence instruction was 
warranted and that Caldwell’s motion to suppress would be denied.   
 
(12) Caldwell’s second claim is that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s 
closing 
statement, 
which 
characterized 
Warner 
Henry 
as 
Caldwell’s 
“codefendant.”6  Defense counsel made no objection to the remark during the 
closing statement.  After the prosecutor was finished, however, the judge brought 
counsel to sidebar and reminded them that Henry was not a codefendant in the case 
being tried.  The prosecutor offered to correct the misstatement, but defense 
counsel said that was not necessary.  The judge took no further action in the matter. 
 
(13) The trial transcript reflects that there was no prejudice to Caldwell 
since, by the time of the prosecutor’s closing statement, the jury had already heard 
Henry testify that he had pleaded guilty to conspiring with Caldwell to traffic in 
cocaine.  Moreover, when alerted to the prosecutor’s misstatement by the judge, 
                                                 
5 Woody v. State, 765 A.2d 1257, 1261 (Del. 2001). 
6 Caldwell and Henry originally were charged in the same indictment.  At the time of Caldwell’s 
trial, however, Henry had pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and conspiracy in connection with 
the June 25, 2002 incident and was serving a 5-year prison term.  The conspiracy charge was 
based upon Henry’s agreement with Caldwell to traffic in cocaine.   
 
 
-7-
defense counsel essentially conceded that there had been no prejudice.  Under 
these circumstances, there clearly is no merit to Caldwell’s claim. 
 
(14) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Caldwell’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice