Title: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 130, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 25, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ALBERTO M. LAW, 
§
§
No. 130, 2006
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
Court Below: Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
in and for New Castle County
§
Cr. I.D. No. 0412009863
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: January 31, 2007
   Decided:   April 25, 2007
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 25  day of April, 2007, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
th
appears to the Court that:
1) Alberto M. Law appeals from his convictions, following a jury trial, of
second degree murder, three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission
of a felony, and other related charges.  He argues that all the convictions should be
overturned because they were based on the uncorroborated testimony of his
accomplice, James McDougal.  In addition, Law contends that the trial court
committed plain error when it instructed the jury on accomplice liability.  We find no
merit to these arguments, and affirm.
2
2) Charles Morris was shot multiple times and killed on December 8, 2004, as
he was walking on the 2500 block of West Street, in Wilmington.  At the time of the
shooting, Solace Bradshaw happened to be sitting on the steps of her cousin’s house
at the corner of West and 25  Streets talking with friends.  A few minutes before the
th
shooting, she saw three people across the street walking at a fast pace, one behind the
other.  Bradshaw identified the first person as Morris, and the others as McDougal,
someone she knew from high school, and McDougal’s friend, who she did not know.
About five minutes after seeing the three young men, Bradshaw heard two gun shots.
She ducked,  then got up and saw McDougal running around the corner.  The person
running behind McDougal was tucking a gun in his pants.
3) Detective Andrew Brock, of the Wilmington Police Department, interviewed
Bradshaw within hours of the shooting.  Based on her statement, the police brought
McDougal into custody a few days later.  McDougal implicated Law,  his next door
neighbor.  After McDougal pled guilty to second degree murder and one count of
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, he testified against Law.
McDougal said that Law suggested that they rob someone, and that Law had a gun
with him.  They spotted Morris walking by and decided to follow him.  According to
McDougal, Law grabbed Morris from behind and started wrestling.  Law got free and
shot Morris twice.  McDougal then ran down 25  Street.
th
Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236 (Del. 2005).
1
Id. at 238.
2
3
4) At trial, Law gave a different account of the crimes.  He admitted that he was
the one who had the idea to rob someone, but testified that McDougal was the person
who had a gun and who shot Morris.  Law also said that he was the first person
running down the street after the shooting.  There was some support for Law’s version
from the fact that McDougal had been arrested for carrying a concealed deadly
weapon approximately two months before the shooting. The State raised questions
about Law’s credibility, however, by getting him to admit that he gave two false
stories to the police during his initial questioning.
5) Without citing any authorities, Law first argues that there was insufficient
evidence to support his convictions.  He says that McDougal’s testimony was totally
self-serving and that the only other witness, Bradshaw, did not actually see the
shooting and had a grudge against Law.
6) There is sufficient evidence to support a conviction if, viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the State, a rational juror could find all of the elements
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.   It is the jury’s function to resolve conflicts
1
in the testimony and assess witness credibility;  and the conviction may be based on
2
Tramill v. State, 425 A.2d 142, 144 (Del. 1980).
3
Brooks v. State, 367 A.2d 638 (Del. 1976).
4
4
the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.   Applying this settled law, we
3
conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support Law’s convictions.  McDougal
gave a full account of the crimes and, although he had reason to implicate Law, his
testimony was largely corroborated by Bradshaw’s less biased observations.
7) Law next argues, again without authority, that the trial court erred in giving
an instruction on accomplice liability.  After reviewing the trial court’s jury
instructions, we are satisfied that the court correctly instructed the jury.  The trial court
specifically instructed the jury that it could not find Law guilty as an accomplice on
the murder charge or the weapons charge associated with that felony. The only counts
for which Law could be found guilty as an accomplice were those  charging him with
felony murder, attempted robbery and possession of a firearm during the commission
of each of those felonies.4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby are, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice