Title: Mumford v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 434, 2017
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 17, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RODERICK MUMFORD, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 434, 2017 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below: Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§  
Cr. ID No. 1608020942A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 17, 2018 
Decided: 
October 17, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 17th day of October 2018, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Roderick Mumford appeals only the Superior Court’s denial of his 
motion for acquittal as to his money laundering charge under 11 Del. C. § 951(a).   
(2) 
Mumford was seen leaving a suspected “stash house,” and arrested by 
the police.1  During searches of both that house and a second house connected to 
Mumford, the police found large quantities of illegal drugs, supporting an inference 
that Mumford had an intent to deal.2  The police also found over $1,000 in cash in 
                                          
 
1 Answering Br. at 4.   
2 Id. at 4–5.   
2 
the first house and keys to two safety deposit boxes in the second house.3  The boxes, 
jointly owned by Mumford and others, contained over $100,000 in cash.4   
(3) 
Mumford was indicted for a slew of drug-related offenses in addition 
to money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.  At trial, the State 
presented circumstantial evidence that Mumford dealt drugs and was engaged in 
money laundering.  Specifically, the State offered testimony from an expert to 
explain that when large quantities of drugs are found with large quantities of money, 
the money is usually tied to drug dealing.5  The State played a previously recorded 
interview between Mumford and the police where he was evasive about how he 
obtained his money, claiming to only have money at the stash house and in a bank 
account.6  And in that same interview, Mumford admitted to owning the safety 
deposit boxes, but claimed that only paperwork was in them.7  At trial, the co-owners 
of the safety deposit boxes did testify that some of the money found was theirs, but 
even crediting their testimony, over $40,000 remained unaccounted for.8  Mumford 
                                          
 
3 Id.   
4 Id. at 7–10.   
5 See App. to Answering Br. at B58–131 (Testimony of Lt. Tyndall (July 11, 2017)). 
6 See generally Exhibit A to Answering Br. (State Police video interview of Mumford).   
7 Id. at 1:00:00–1:02.35. 
8 See, e.g., App. to Opening Br. at A137 (Trial Testimony of Shawanda Knox (July 14, 2017)) (Q:  
In that safety deposit box, besides the $17,900, did you have other lottery winning, as well?  A:  
Yes.  I had my savings from my job and I do little odd jobs on the weekends.  I sell my purses and 
my clothes.  Q:  Is it your habit to put money in a safety deposit box?  A:  Yes.”). 
3 
introduced no evidence, such as a W-2, that he had legitimate employment that could 
have generated that amount of cash.   
(4) 
At the close of the State’s case, Mumford moved for acquittal as to his 
money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering charges.9  The 
Superior Court granted his motion as to the conspiracy charge but denied it as to the 
money laundering charge.10  The jury found Mumford guilty of money laundering,11 
and he appeals only the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for acquittal.   
(5) 
We review de novo, examining “whether any rational trier of fact 
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find a defendant 
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all elements of the crime.”12  “For the purposes 
of this inquiry, this Court does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial 
evidence of defendant’s guilt.”13 
(6) 
Mumford’s appeal is without merit.  The State presented evidence that 
Mumford possessed large amounts of illegal drugs, from which a jury could 
rationally conclude Mumford possessed the drugs to sell for profit.14  Other 
                                          
 
9 Opening Br. at 1.   
10 Answering Br. at 1.   
11 Id. at 1–2.   
12 Clay v. State, 164 A.3d 907, 913 (Del. 2017) (quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted). 
13 Cline v. State, 720 A.2d 891, 892 (Del. 1998).   
14 App. to Answering Br. at B22–25(Testimony of Officer Jason Glenn (July 11, 2017)).   
4 
evidence, including expert testimony by an officer experienced in the conduct of 
illegal drug trafficking, gave the jury a basis for reaching that conclusion.15   
(7) 
Likewise, the State presented evidence that rationally supported a 
conclusion that a substantial portion of the $100,000 found in the two safety deposit 
boxes and the over $1,000 found at the first house where the illegal drugs were seized 
was attributable to drug dealing.  That evidence included: (i) Mumford’s own 
evasive statements about where he kept his money, what his housing costs were, and 
how he afforded his lifestyle;16 (ii) Mumford’s admission that he had access to the 
safety deposit boxes only after he was specifically asked about them;17 (iii) 
Mumford’s false claim that the boxes contained only paperwork;18 (iv) Mumford’s 
statement that any money he had was either at the first stash house or put into bank 
accounts, which jurors could infer is typical of where pay for legitimate work is 
deposited;19 (v) the fact that instead of being found in a bank account as Mumford’s 
statement suggests, the vast bulk of money rationally attributable to Mumford was 
found in safety deposit boxes instead of traceable bank accounts;20 (vi) the absence 
                                          
 
15 Id. at B69, 73, 80–83, 85–90, 94–98 (Testimony of Lt. Tyndall (July 11, 2017)) 
16 Exhibit A to Answering Br. (State Police video interview of Mumford at 44:40–47:00). 
17 Id. at 50:00–52:00 
18 Id.  
19 Id. at 50:30–51:30 (“Q:  How much money you have in your bank account . . . . A:  It’s not a 
lot; it’s not even like $2,000.”); at 1:01:43(“The only money I’m accountable for is in Houston 
Acres.”) 
20 Mumford had only about $4,100 in his savings and checking accounts.  Opening Br. at 8; App. 
to Opening Br. at A101–02 (Testimony of Detective Robert Cowden (July 13, 2017)).   
5 
of any record evidence that Mumford had legitimate earnings or other sources of 
legitimate income that could have generated over $40,000 of cash;21 and (vii) the 
fact that over $1,000 was found alongside the illegal drugs at the first house.  This 
evidence, taken in its totality, provided a sufficient basis for the jury to conclude 
with the required certainty that a substantial amount of the cash found in the safety 
deposit boxes was the product of Mumford’s sale of illegal drugs.22 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
                                          
 
21 See App. to Opening Br. at A87–89 (Testimony of Joyce Brown-Walker (July 12, 2017)); A141 
(Testimony of Shawanda Knox (July 14, 2017)). 
22 Pointing to a federal statute, Mumford makes a confusing argument that the Delaware statute he 
was convicted under requires the defendant have constructive possession of the currency in 
question.  See Opening Br. at 10–11 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1956).  The federal statute is inapplicable 
because it requires more elements than the Delaware statute, such as the existence of a financial 
transaction.  Compare 18 U.S.C. § 1956, with 11 Del. C. § 951(a).  The Delaware statute requires 
only that “[t]he person knowingly acquires or maintains an interest in, conceals, possesses, 
transfers, or transports the proceeds of criminal activity.” 11 Del. C. § 951(a) (emphasis added).  
In other words, although the heading of § 951 is “Money laundering,” the statute does not require 
“laundering” in the most common sense of that term; that is that the proceeds from illegal activities 
be transformed into other ostensibly legitimate assets in order to conceal their origin.  As we have 
shown, the State introduced sufficient evidence to permit the jury to infer that substantial sums of 
cash belonging to Mumford were the product of his involvement in sales of illegal drugs.  In fact, 
even if the Delaware statute required Mumford to have constructive possession of the cash in 
question, the State produced evidence from which the jury could conclude that Mumford 
controlled the cash in the safety deposit boxes and the cash seized at the first house.