Opinion ID: 2330522
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hate Crime

Text: Andrews argues that the trial judge erred by determining that Andrews selected Edmunds because of his race under 11 Del. C. § 1304. Andrews contends that he did not direct his speech toward Edmunds because Edmunds fortuitously happened to be African American, but rather because he was the person, at that time, attempting to discipline him; therefore, Andrews did not intentionally select Edmunds under 11 Del. C. § 1304. He also contends that his use of the word nigger does not implicate the hate crime statute because Andrews uses this very derogatory term towards various people, including his own Caucasian mother. This rather bizarre behavior we are apparently being asked to accept as a mitigating circumstance. Andrews contends, therefore, that the trial judge had insufficient evidence from which he could find that Andrews had committed a hate crime. The parties have different views regarding this Court's standard of review. Andrews argued that the standard of review for this Court is abuse of discretion. The State argues that the standard of review is, whether viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We review interpretations of law de novo; therefore, we first define the meaning of select in the hate crime statute under de novo review. [31] We then will determine whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial judge's conclusion that Andrews committed a hate crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In reviewing a claim for insufficiency of the evidence, the relevant inquiry is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [32] In doing so, th[is] Court does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence. [33] Delaware's hate crime statute, 11 Del. C. § 1304(a) states, in pertinent part: (a) Any person who commits, or attempts to commit, any crime as defined by the laws of this State, and who intentionally: (2) Selects the victim because of the victim's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry, shall be guilty of a hate crime. [34] Under 11 Del. C. § 1304(b)(2), If the underlying offense is a class A, B, or C misdemeanor, the hate crime shall be a class G felony. Here, the underlying offense is terroristic threatening, a class A misdemeanor. The trial judge has the discretion to sentence for a class G felony as well as for a class A misdemeanor should he find that Andrews selected Edmunds to be a victim of terroristic threatening because of his race. Therefore, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrews intentionally selected Edmunds because of his race. The Delaware Code does not define the word select, and the issue is one of first impression for this Court. Of the 44 states that have invoked hate crime statutes, nine have statutes using language such as select or intentionally select that are similar to Delaware's statute. [35] The majority of jurisdictions that have reached this issue have determined that there must be a causal connection between the crime and the prejudice. [36] The word select in the hate crime statute operates in two ways. The speaker must both: (1) select the words and (2) select the person to whom the speaker directs those words. Here, Andrews told Edmunds he had cousins in the Ku Klux Klan, that he had a godfather in the mob, and that he would hang Edmunds from a tree along with the threat that he had a shotgun and would blow [Edmunds's] brains out. He also called Edmunds a nigger various times. Andrews selected specific words that were hate filled and racially charged. Furthermore, he directed those words solely towards Edmunds, an African American. At the time Andrews uttered those words, there were two people standing near him, one Caucasian (Watson) and one African American (Edmunds), and he chose to direct those racially charged words solely to Edmunds. The trial judge's findings, fully supported by the record, underlie our conclusion: The Court first examines the defense's argument that the defendant did not make race-based threats because of Edmunds' race but, rather, because Edmunds was disciplining the defendant. Based upon careful review of the testimony presented at trial, the Court rejects this argument. First, the evidence shows that the defendant previously singled out Edmunds on prior occasions, making derogatory comments and racial slurs towards Edmunds and Edmunds alone in the COP module. Secondly, the evidence indicates that the defendant did not like the fact that an African-American person was disciplining him because he thought that African-Americans were inferior to him, as evidenced by the comments he made before to Edmunds, i.e. stating You shouldn't be here, you should go back to Africa, I don't have to listen to you because you're nothing but a porch monkey, You are nothing but a fucking nigger, You have no right to tell me what to do, You should be in a field picking cotton, Who are you to tell me what to do? and I am smarter than you. The defendant had an obvious disrespect and extreme dislike for Edmunds because he was African-American and selected Edmunds as a victim because of his race. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the evidence shows that Watson was present when the defendant was threatening Edmunds, and the defendant never once directed these racially-tainted threats towards Watson, who is Caucasian. While the defense may argue that the defendant had no choice but to victimize this African-American individual because he was the only person disciplining the defendant that day, contrary evidence was presented at trial. Watson testified that on the day of the incident, the defendant was disrupting the class by talking out. After he refused to quiet down, Watson testified that she-not Edmunds-initially disciplined the defendant by giving him the original two minute violation. From the evidence presented at trial, it is clear the defendant made a choice not to launch into a verbal assault on Watson who is Caucasian. The defendant did not tell Watson that he was going to shoot her and splatter her brains all over the wall. The defendant did not tell Watson that he was going to string her up from a tree in the woods or have his cousins in the KKK or uncle in the mob find her and hurt her. These statements and others were made to Edmunds, whom the defendant repeatedly called a nigger, carpet head, and porch monkey. The evidence presented at trial reveals that the defendant had repeatedly, for over a year, called Edmunds racial slurs, and on the day of the incident he, again, singled out this particular victim because of his race. From the facts presented at trial, the defendant made unambiguous race-based threats to Edmunds on the day of the incident, as in the past, telling him You shouldn't be here you fucking nigger, You should be in Africa, etc. The defendant even admitted at trial that he made a conscious choice to scare Edmunds and the particular choice of threats necessarily implies that a selection was made by the defendant to terrorize this African-American victim. Secondly, the defendant's use of the word nigger to other people, including his own mother, cannot negate the fact that the defendant committed a Hate Crime against Edmunds. While the defense argues that the defendant calls everyone a nigger, it is apparent that he did not call Watson or any other person in the module by such a name on the day of the incident. Instead, the defendant selected to call Edmunds, an African-American, a nigger and chose to make specific, derogatory racial slurs and death threats exclusively towards Edmunds. [37] Having considered the record, we conclude that the record fully supports the trial judge's finding that the State had established each essential element of a hate crime beyond a reasonable doubt.