Opinion ID: 2071409
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Victim's Testimony Sufficient Deadly Weapon Apparently Displayed

Text: In this case, the only matter in dispute was whether the April offense was a first or a second degree robbery. That determination turned on whether the State could prove the charge in the indictment that Deshields displayed what appeared to be a deadly weapon to wit: did place his hand under his shirt in a manner to make it appear that he possessed a gun.... See 11 Del.C. § 832(a)(2). When the motion in limine was argued, the State knew that Deshields did not announce any intention to shoot Jackson on April 21, 1995 and that Jackson did not see a gun. Instead, Deshields had conveyed his meaning to Jackson through gestures, in order to overcome her hesitation in responding to his demand to give him the money. The State's proffered purpose in introducing the modus operandi evidence of the May robbery, during its case-in-chief during the April robbery, was to demonstrate the intent behind or the absence of a mistake in Deshields' gestures to Jackson. The record reflects, however, that the content of Jackson's testimony was known to the Superior Court and the parties at the time of the motion in limine. Jackson had given statements to the police and had testified at Deshields' first trial. According to Jackson's known accounts of the April robbery, she saw a bulge and thought that Deshields' gestures meant he had a gun. Jackson testified consistently with those prior recitations at the second trial for the April robbery, to wit: He took his right hand and reached up under the tee shirt he was wearing. My eyes automatically went to it. By now, I'm catching on here, this is what is happening. I'm watching that hand and he kind of put it down in front underneath his belt in the front of his pants and lifted it back up and pointed something out from underneath the shirt. There was a bulk or bulge or whatever it was there.... It appeared to be heavy and bulky. Frankly, I felt he had a weapon and I was pretty convinced it wasn't a knife. It didn't appear to take the shape of a knife.... I thought he had a gun .... When I saw that, I went ahead and did what he told me to do. (emphasis added). In Getz, this Court stated: where, as here, the State presents direct evidence, through the testimony of the alleged victim, that an attack occurred, no evidential purpose is served by proof that the defendant committed other intentional acts of the same type. Getz v. State, Del.Supr., 538 A.2d 726, 733 (1988). Nevertheless, at Deshields' trial, as in Getz, the State sought to prove the charged crime by proving another crime against the same victim. Trial courts must carefully examine offers of proof to insure that acts of [other] misconduct have independent logical relevance and do not further the purpose of showing predisposition to commit the crime charged. [2] Allen v. State, Del.Supr., 644 A.2d 982, 984-85 (1994). Given the victim's eyewitness testimony at Deshields' trial, as in Getz, evidence of other crimes against the same victim had no independent logical relevance to a material issue in dispute. Therefore, evidence of the May robbery was inadmissible during the State's case-in-chief against Deshields for the April robbery. The admission of that evidence constituted reversible error.