Title: Collins v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 274, 2000
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 6, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
GALEN COLLINS,
§
§
No. 274, 2000
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
Court Below: Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
in and for New Castle County
§
I.D. No. 9802013395
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: July 10, 2001
Decided: September 6, 2001
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 6th day of September 2001, on consideration of the briefs of the parties,
it appears to the Court that:
1) Galen Collins was convicted, following a jury trial, of trafficking in
cocaine, possession with intent to deliver cocaine, possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony, and resisting arrest.  He argues on appeal that: i) the trial
court erred in admitting hearsay evidence identifying him as one of the perpetrators;
ii) the prosecutor’s improper remarks during rebuttal summation deprived him of a
fair trial; and iii) the trial court erred in sentencing Collins as an adult on all charges
except the possession of a firearm charge.
1Del. Supr., No. 289, 2000, Berger, J. (August 21, 2001).
2
2) Collins was tried with his co-defendants, Dion Oliver and Abraham
Farnum.  In affirming Oliver’s convictions, this Court considered and rejected the
same claims advanced by Collins concerning the prosecutor’s comments to the jury
and the propriety of being sentenced as an adult.  For the reasons stated in State v.
Oliver,1 we find Collins’ claims with respect to those two issues to be without merit.
Collins’ claim concerning the hearsay evidence as to his identity remains for
consideration.
3) In February 1998, Wilmington Police Detective Liam Sullivan and FBI
Special Agent Gordon Cobb were watching a home on Henderson Drive in
Wilmington, Delaware.  They had been tipped that Oliver, Farnum, and Collins
were carrying a large quantity of drugs and that they would be found at the
Henderson Drive home.  The officers saw the three men leave the home and get into
a green Buick Riviera.  Oliver drove, Collins sat in the front passenger seat, and
Farnum sat in the back.
4)  After following the car for a short distance, Sullivan and Cobb coordinated
with other police units and conducted a “felony stop.”  An unmarked police car
pulled in front of the Riviera and two plainclothes detectives jumped out with guns
3
drawn.  At the same time, Sullivan and Cobb pulled behind the Riviera in their
unmarked Ford Explorer.  Sullivan and Cobb were not in uniform, but they had used
their siren and flashing lights and they identified themselves as police officers as
soon as they got out of the Explorer.
5)  The two officers saw the Riviera’s tail lights go on and dove back into the
Explorer right before the Riviera backed into it.  Oliver continued driving in reverse
for a short distance until the Riviera hit a telephone pole.  Collins and his co-
defendants jumped out of the car and started running in opposite directions.  Oliver
and Farnum were apprehended quickly.  Collins was found later in Connecticut.
6)  The officers searched the Riviera and found a brown paper bag containing
450 grams of crack cocaine and a loaded handgun on the rear floorboard behind the
driver’s seat.  The police found Collins’ thumb print on the paper bag containing the
cocaine.
7) At trial, Sullivan testified that he was working on a task force investigating
drug trafficking when, based on information he received about the three defendants,
he and Cobb set up surveillance of the Henderson Drive home.  Collins objected on
the ground that the informant who tipped Sullivan about the three defendants was not
available to be cross-examined.  The trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction:
4
At the beginning of his testimony, Detective Sullivan testified that he received
information that the three defendants, by name, were in the house on ...
Henderson Drive.  You can consider that testimony only to show why the
officer went to the house.  You cannot consider that testimony to establish that
these three named defendants were, in fact, in the house.
8) Collins argues that Sullivan’s identification testimony should have been
excluded and, without that testimony, there was insufficient evidence to establish that
Collins was one of the people in the green Riviera at the time of the felony stop. 
9)  As in Oliver, we find that the trial court acted within its discretion in
allowing Sullivan to explain the reason that he was watching the Henderson Drive
home and that the court gave an appropriate limiting instruction.  Since Sullivan’s
hearsay testimony could not be used to establish Collins’ identity, however, the
question becomes whether there was sufficient identification evidence.  Collins says
that the only other evidence was his thumb print on the paper bag found in the car.
Since the State was unable to establish when the thumb print was made, Collins
argues that it does not place him at the scene of the crimes.
10) Collins’ premise is factually flawed.  There was ample identification
evidence, in addition to the thumb print.  Cobb testified that he got a good look at
Collins, who was known to Cobb as “Gilly” or “Gillybop,” as Collins exited the
front passenger side door of the Riviera.  Sullivan also saw Collins jump out of the
5
car, and both officers identified Collins in court.  Thus, we find Collins’
identification claim to be without merit.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice