Title: Manlove v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 215, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: January 19, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
FLOYD E. MANLOVE, 
§
§
No. 215, 2004
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below: Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware in
v.
§
and for New Castle County
§
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
ID No. 0308021197
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: November 17, 2004
Decided: January 19, 2005
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
This 19th day of January 2005, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties
and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Floyd E. Manlove, appeals his convictions,
following a jury trial in the Superior Court, of trafficking in cocaine, possession with
the intent to deliver cocaine, possession of marijuana and maintaining a dwelling for
purposes of keeping a controlled substance.  He argues that the trial court erred, as a
matter of law, in denying his request for a jury instruction indicating that mere
presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to find guilt.  We conclude that a mere
presence jury instruction was not required in this case.  Accordingly, we affirm.
2
(2)  Prior to his arrest, the Wilmington Police Department received a reliable
tip from an informant that the defendant was selling crack cocaine out of his
apartment located in Wilmington, Delaware.  As a result, the police began to monitor
activity at the defendant’s apartment.  During this surveillance, the police observed
a woman meeting with the defendant outside the apartment.  The defendant then
reentered the apartment, only to reemerge a short time later to meet with the woman
outside the apartment.  The woman left on foot and was later stopped by the police
carrying crack cocaine.
(3)  The police then obtained and executed a search warrant for the defendant’s
apartment.  Upon entering the apartment, the police encountered the defendant’s
brother, Ernest Manlove, who fled out the back door where he was immediately
apprehended by police posted at the rear of the building.  The police found the
defendant located in the apartment’s bathroom.  Once the defendant and other persons
were secured, the police utilized a drug trained police dog to search the apartment.  As
a result of this search, the police located crack cocaine behind the plumbing access
panels located in the hallway outside the apartment’s bathroom as well as marijuana
in a dresser located in one of the apartment’s two bedrooms.
Ayers v. State, 844 A.2d 304, 309 (Del. 2004) (citing Yocum v. State, 777 A.2d
1
782, 784 (Del. 2001)).
Floray v. State, 720 A.2d 1132, 1138 (Del. 1998) (holding that while a defendant
2
does not have a right to a particular jury instruction he does have an unqualified right to a correct
statement of the substance of the law).
Hopewell v. State, 712 A.2d 88, 95-96 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1998), overruled on
3
other grounds, Fleming v. State, 818 A.2d 117 (Md. 2003).
3
(4) “The standard of review for a denial of a requested jury instruction is de
novo.”   The defendant maintains that he was entitled to the mere presence jury
1
instruction because it was a correct statement of the law  given the evidence in the
2
record that there were two people in the apartment when the search warrant was
executed (one of whom fled the scene), other individuals had access to the apartment
on a regular basis and the drugs were not found on his person.  However, a mere
presence jury instruction was not required in view of all the other instructions given
in this case.  The trial court instructed the jury as to the defendant’s presumption of
innocence and the State’s requirement to prove each and every element of the crimes
charged.   The jury instructions as a whole clearly conveyed that more than the
3
defendant’s mere presence in the apartment was required to prove his guilt.  The trial
court’s refusal to provide a mere presence jury instruction did not constitute reversible
error under the facts of this case.      
4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS SO ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.  
BY THE COURT:
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely      
           Justice                        
5
oc:
Clerk (orig. +3)
xc:
Hon. John E. Babiarz, Jr.
Edmund M. Hillis, Esq.
Timothy J. Donovan, Jr.
Justices (8)
D. Collins
P. Naylor
Law Clerk
File