Title: Lewis v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 364, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 22, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
EDWARD LEWIS, 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  No. 364, 2004 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
) 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
)  Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for Kent County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
)  Cr. ID No. 0305000877 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  January 26, 2005 
Decided:  February 22, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 22nd day of February 2005, on consideration of the parties’ briefs, it 
appears to the Court that: 
 
1. 
Edward Lewis appeals his conviction in the Superior Court, claiming 
the trial judge erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charges 
of aggravated menacing and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission 
of a felony (PDWDCF).  Lewis contends that the State failed to prove the fear 
element in the menacing charge and the deadly-weapon element in the possession 
charge.  Because the testimony at trial, when viewed in a light most favorable to 
the State, supports the conclusion that the victim feared Lewis would attack her 
 
2
and that Lewis in fact did so, we find that the evidence was sufficient to support 
the jury’s verdict.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
2. 
In May 2003, the Delaware State Police arrested Lewis and his 
girlfriend Clarissa Custis after receiving a domestic-dispute call.  According to 
Custis, Lewis choked her after the two began fighting.  Custis then picked up a tire 
iron.  In response, Lewis struck Custis with a pipe.  At the scene, police observed 
that Custis and Lewis suffered from a variety of lacerations.   
3. 
At Lewis’s March 2004 trial, Custis testified that Lewis had choked 
her but denied he actually hit her with the pipe.  She also stated she was never 
afraid of him.  Lewis testified in his own defense and disclaimed ever choking or 
hitting Custis.  Following deliberations, the jury convicted Lewis of six counts 
related to the incident.1  Lewis then moved for judgment of acquittal on three 
charges: aggravated menacing, PDWDCF, and endangering the welfare of a child.  
The trial judge granted the motion on the endangering count, but denied the motion 
on the other two charges.2  Lewis claims that the trial judge erred by denying the 
motion for a judgment of acquittal, asserting that the State failed to present 
sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt on the aggravated menacing and 
PDWDCF charges.  
                                                 
1  
State v. Lewis, Del. Super., I.D. No. 00122554 (Mar. 30, 2004). 
2  
State v. Lewis, Del. Super., I.D. No. 00122554 (May 14, 2004). 
 
3
 
4. 
We review the denial of a motion for acquittal de novo.3  Viewing the 
evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we look to whether a rational trier 
of fact could find Lewis guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.4  In reviewing the 
record, we do not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence of guilt.5  
 
5. 
Lewis first contends that the State failed to prove the elements of 
aggravated menacing.  A person is guilty of aggravated menacing when “by 
displaying what appears to be a deadly weapon[,] that person intentionally places 
another person in fear of imminent physical injury.”6  Because Custis testified that 
she was not afraid of being hit with the pipe, Lewis argues that the State failed to 
prove that Custis was in fear of imminent physical injury. 
 
6. 
It is the sole province of the jury to resolve both questions of witness 
credibility and conflicts in witness testimony.7  A jury verdict based on conflicting 
evidence will not be set aside “if there [is] competent evidence upon which the 
verdict might reasonably be based.”8   
                                                 
3  
Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982, 989 (Del. 2004). 
4  
Id. 
5  
Cline v. State, 720 A.2d 891, 892 (Del. 1998). 
6  
11 Del. C. § 602(b).  
7  
Pryor v. State, 453 A.2d 98, 100 (Del. 1982). 
8  
Zutz v. State, 160 A.2d 727, 729 (Del. 1960). 
 
4
 
7. 
Although Custis testified that she was not afraid of Lewis, the 
prosecution presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s aggravated-
menacing verdict.  First, the record reveals that Custis stated she was afraid while 
Lewis choked her.  It was logical for the jury to infer that when Lewis picked up 
the pipe moments later, Custis remained fearful that he would continue attacking 
her.  Furthermore, the fact that Custis armed herself with a tire iron also would 
permit the jury to infer that she was afraid Lewis would strike her with the pipe.     
Based on this evidence, we find the trial judge properly denied Lewis’s motion for 
a judgment of acquittal on the aggravated menacing charge.    
 
8. 
Lewis next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence surrounding the 
PDWDCF charge.  Two elements underlie PDWDCF: a defendant’s commission 
of a felony, and the possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of that 
felony.9  A deadly weapon can include a “bludgeon . . . which is used, or attempted 
to be used, to cause death or serious physical injury.”10  Lewis claims that the State 
failed to prove that the pipe he was holding when police arrived constituted a 
deadly weapon because the State failed to prove that he hit or attempted to hit 
Custis with it. 
                                                 
9  
11 Del. C. §1447(a). 
10  
Id. § 222(5). 
 
5
 
9. 
The jury heard conflicting evidence about whether or not Lewis struck 
Custis with the pipe.  The arresting officer testified that in her post-arrest 
statement, Custis told police that Lewis hit her in the back of the head.  At trial, the 
officer stated he observed an injury to the back of her head, and the State 
introduced a corresponding photograph.  On taking the stand, however, Custis 
denied that Lewis struck her with the pipe. 
 
10. 
The officer’s testimony relating Custis’s post-arrest statement, along 
with the photograph of the head wound, was sufficient to support the jury’s finding 
that Lewis used the pipe to strike Curtis, and that the pipe was a deadly weapon.  
As previously stated, where conflicting evidence is presented at trial, we will not 
overturn a jury verdict so long as there is competent evidence to support that 
verdict.11  We find that on this record, the State produced sufficient evidence to 
support the jury’s finding of guilt on the PDWDCF charge.  Accordingly, we find 
the trial judge did not err by denying Lewis’s motion for judgment of acquittal.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
   
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
                                                 
11  
Zutz, 160 A.2d at 729.