Title: Matter of Dorsey
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 244, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 23, 2001

1Del. Const. art. I, § 8.
2This is the second time Dorsey has sought a writ of prohibition on the basis of
these arguments.  We dismissed Dorsey’s first petition, concluding that he should file a
(continued...)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
PETITION OF JAMES DORSEY
FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION
§
§
§  No. 244, 2001
§
§
Submitted: June 29, 2001
  Decided:   July 23, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices
O R D E R
This 23rd day of July 2001, upon consideration of the petition of James
Dorsey for a writ of prohibition, and the State of Delaware’s answer and
motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
Dorsey seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the Superior Court
from retrying him on charges of first degree murder and possession of a
firearm during the commission of a felony.  Dorsey claims that the Double
Jeopardy Clause of the Delaware Constitution1 bars his retrial because the
prosecution a) intentionally deprived him of a fair trial; and b) presented
insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.2  The State of Delaware, as the
2(...continued)
motion to dismiss in the Superior Court in the first instance so that we might have the
benefit of the trial court’s view of the evidence and the conduct of counsel.  In re Dorsey,
Del. Supr., No. 573, 2000, Walsh, J., 2001 WL 93008 (January 23, 2001) (ORDER).
Dorsey filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied by the Superior Court, and then filed
the present petition for a writ of prohibition in this Court.
3There were three bases for the Superior Court’s decision: the Medical Examiner
gave improper testimony concerning Dorsey’s credibility; a complete ruling concerning
the admissibility of certain evidence was never made on the record; and the prosecution’s
closing argument was improper.  It appears that, with one exception, Dorsey did not object
to any instance of prosecutorial misconduct during the trial and did not move for a mistrial
until after the penalty hearing. 
-2-
real party in interest, has filed a response and a motion to dismiss Dorsey’s
petition.  After careful consideration of the parties’ positions, we have
determined that the State’s motion to dismiss must be granted.  
(2)
In May 1998, a Superior Court jury convicted Dorsey of murder
in the first degree, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony,
and possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited.  At the subsequent
penalty hearing, the jury recommended that the Superior Court impose the
death penalty.  Following the penalty hearing, Dorsey moved for a mistrial or,
in the alternative, for a judgment of acquittal.  In November 1998, the
Superior Court granted Dorsey a new trial based upon its determination that
he had been deprived of a fair trial.3  Dorsey’s convictions for murder and
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony were vacated.  The
4Dorsey v. State, Del. Supr., 761 A.2d 807 (2000).
5In re Hovey, Del. Supr., 545 A.2d 626, 629 (1988).
6Id. at 628.
7Id.
8Id. at 629.
-3-
Superior Court did not disturb Dorsey’s conviction for possession of a deadly
weapon by a person prohibited, but that conviction was reversed by this Court
on appeal.4
(3)
In a writ of prohibition proceeding, the petitioner has the burden
of demonstrating to this Court, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
contemplated action of the trial court exceeds its jurisdiction.5  A writ of
prohibition will not be issued if the petitioner has another adequate and
complete remedy.6  The right to appeal a criminal conviction is generally
considered to be such an adequate and complete remedy.7  This Court has
acknowledged, however, that the remedy of appeal in a criminal case may be
inadequate when the lack of jurisdiction of the trial court is clear and
unmistakable.8
(4)
Dorsey has failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing
evidence that the Superior Court’s contemplated action of retrying him for
9Bailey v. State, Del. Supr., 521 A.2d 1069, 1078 (1987) (citing Oregon v.
Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 679 (1982). 
-4-
murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony exceeds
its jurisdiction.  In its decision on Dorsey’s motion to dismiss, the Superior
Court reiterated that Dorsey’s right to a fair trial had been undermined by
prosecutorial misconduct, but nevertheless found, based upon its view of the
evidence and the conduct of counsel at trial, that the prosecution had not
willfully provoked a mistrial or exhibited the kind of bad faith conduct the
double jeopardy bar to retrial is intended to address.9  Dorsey has failed to
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those findings by the
Superior Court were incorrect.  We do not find that the Superior Court clearly
and unmistakably lacks jurisdiction to retry him.
(5)
As for Dorsey’s claim that double jeopardy bars his retrial
because there was insufficient evidence to convict him, the Superior Court
twice denied Dorsey’s motions for judgment of acquittal on that basis—once
after the close of the prosecution’s case and again after trial.  Dorsey has
failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those rulings of
the Superior Court were incorrect.  Again, we do not find that the Superior
Court clearly and unmistakably lacks jurisdiction to retry him. 
10We also deny Dorsey’s subsequently-filed request for oral argument.
-5-
(6)
Our denial of relief through a writ of prohibition in this case does
not preclude later assertion of a claim of prosecutorial misconduct in the event
of a direct appeal of any subsequent conviction.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
prohibition is DISMISSED.10
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh
Justice