Title: Coverdale v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 473, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 11, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STEVEN COVERDALE, 
 
§   No. 473, 2003 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   Court Below – Superior Court 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§   of the State of Delaware, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   in and for New Castle County 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§   Case No. 0212003597 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  February 10, 2004 
 
 
 
 
     Decided:  March 11, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
Upon appeal from the Superior Court.  AFFIRMED. 
 
Kathryn van Amerongen, Assistant Public Defender, Wilmington, 
Delaware, for appellant. 
 
 
Timothy J. Donovan, Jr., Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, 
Delaware, for appellee. 
 
 
 
 
 
HOLLAND, Justice: 
 
2
On January 13, 2003, Coverdale was indicted for Assault in the First 
Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony 
(“PFDCF”), Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited 
(“PDWPP”), and Aggravated Menacing.  Following a jury trial, Coverdale 
was convicted as charged.  This is Coverdale’s direct appeal. 
Coverdale has raised two issues on appeal.  First, he contends that the 
trial judge improperly excluded evidence of the victim’s arrest on felony 
drug charges.  Second, Coverdale contends that the prosecutor’s closing 
argument improperly denigrated the role of defense counsel.  We have 
concluded that both of Coverdale’s arguments are without merit. 
Facts 
The record reflects that on the evening of November 27, 2002, Keno 
James was standing outside his house when he was approached by a black 
male.  The man, whom James did not know, asked him if he knew a 
particular person.  James replied that he did not.  The man then pulled out a 
handgun.  James attempted to run away, but the man fired several bullets.  
James was shot once in the back.  James first ran to his home, and then to the 
 
3
corner store in an attempt to find some help.1  A man at the corner store 
called 911. 
During an interview with Detective Hall, James described his assailant 
as a short stocky black male who had a dark scar or mark on his left eye and 
was wearing a blue jumpsuit.  Several days later, James was shown a 
photographic line-up.  From that photographic array, James positively 
identified Steven Coverdale as the man who shot him. 
On the basis of this identification, the police obtained a warrant to 
search Coverdale’s residence.  At his residence, located approximately six 
blocks from the shooting, the police recovered a pair of blue coveralls.  The 
gun was never recovered. 
Witness Drug Arrest Irrelevant 
At trial, defense counsel sought to impeach James’ testimony by 
introducing his recent arrest as a juvenile for Possession with Intent to 
Deliver Marijuana, and several weapons offenses related to a 9-millimeter 
handgun.  This arrest occurred six months after the shooting and three weeks 
before trial.  The Superior Court judge ruled that James’ arrest for drug 
possession was irrelevant, but allowed the defense to question James 
regarding his possession of the 9mm handgun, because the police had found 
                                                 
1 Apparently, James’ sister’s boyfriend was home, but James did not realize this.  
 
4
9mm shell casings near the scene of the shooting.2  It was undisputed, 
however, that James was shot with a .25 caliber bullet, and five .25 caliber 
bullet casings were found at the scene. 
Coverdale argues that he “should have been allowed to cross-examine 
James about the fact the he was a drug dealer and in reality, that was the 
reason [James] was stating outside in a known drug area after dark.”  It is 
within the discretion of the trial court to admit specific instances of conduct 
of a witness into evidence for the purpose of impeaching the witness’ 
character for truthfulness.3  In exercising its discretion, a trial judge should 
consider:  whether the testimony of the witness being impeached is crucial; 
the logical relevance of the specific impeachment evidence to the question of 
bias; the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, and undue delay; 
and whether the evidence of bias is cumulative.4 
 
The record reflects that the trial court considered these factors and 
properly determined that the danger of unfair prejudice to the State 
outweighed any logical relevance that James’ drug arrest might have to the 
charges against Coverdale.  While James’ testimony was crucial in that he 
was the sole witness in the case, evidence of his recent drug arrest as a 
                                                                                                                                                 
Additionally, the telephone at the residence was not working. 
2 The 9mm casings were found around the corner from where James was shot. 
3 DRE 608(b). 
 
5
juvenile does not, by itself, tend to demonstrate any bias toward Coverdale 
or lack of credibility.  Drug offenses are generally not crimes of dishonesty.5  
Accordingly, even if James had been convicted of a drug offense as an adult, 
evidence of that conviction would only be admissible in the exercise of the 
trial judge’s discretion.6  The trial judge acted appropriately within her 
discretion by excluding evidence that James, a juvenile, was arrested on drug 
charges several months after he had been shot.7 
Isolated Comment Harmless 
 
Coverdale’s second contention on appeal is that the prosecutor’s use 
of the phrase “red herring” during closing arguments deprived him of the 
right to a fair trial.  The record reflects that the prosecutor described 
evidence of the 9mm gun as a “red herring.”  Coverdale’s defense counsel 
objected to this phrase.  Defense counsel did not, however, request either a 
curative instruction or a mistrial.  
Coverdale argues that the “red herring” comment improperly 
denigrated the role of defense counsel and thus precluded him from having a 
fair trial.  Coverdale relies primarily on two New Jersey cases to support his 
                                                                                                                                                 
4 Weber v. State, 457 A.2d 674, 681 (Del. 1983). 
5 Gregory v. State, 616 A.2d 1198 (Del. 1992) (holding that defendant’s prior conviction 
for possession with the intent to deliver marijuana should not have been allowed in 
evidence). 
6 D.R.E. 609(a)(2). 
7 Weber v. State, 457 A.2d at 681. 
 
6
contention.8  The two cases cited by Coverdale both involved repeated 
remarks by the prosecuting attorneys and their cumulative effect on the 
jury’s perception of defense counsel.9  In Coverdale’s case, only one isolated 
remark is alleged to be improper.  
The record in Coverdale’s case reflects that the prosecutor’s reference 
to the 9mm casings located near the scene of the shooting as a “red herring” 
did not denigrate the role of defense counsel.  There was no dispute that 
James was shot in the back with a .25 caliber handgun.  In context, the “red 
herring” remark suggested to the jury that the 9mm casings had no 
relevance.  We have concluded that the prosecutor’s single reference to the 
9mm shell casings as a “red herring” had no effect on Coverdale’s right to a 
fair trial. 
Conclusion 
The judgments of the Superior Court are affirmed. 
                                                 
8 Geller v. Akawie, et. al, 818 A.2d 402 (N.J. Super. 2003); Henker v. Preybylowksi, 524 
A.2d 455 (N.J. Super. 1987). 
9 See Geller v. Akawie, et. al, 818 A.2d 402 (N.J. Super. 2003); Henker v. Preybylowksi, 
524 A.2d 455 (N.J. Super. 1987)