Opinion ID: 6337291
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The March 2020 Bench Trial

Text: Patterson waived his right to a jury trial, and a two-day bench trial occurred on March 12, 2020, and March 13, 2020.42 Patterson’s counsel acknowledged in his opening statement that the identity of the female in the video would be the central issue to the case.43 D.L.’s appearance had changed significantly in the three years since the incident.44 D.L. had gained approximately thirty pounds and changed her hair.45 D.L. testified extensively about details of her body, as well as changes to it, but the State also attempted to admit a photo of D.L. taken around the time of the incident in 2017 (“Photo 1”). 46 Photo 1 38 A100, 103. 39 A104. 40 Opening Br. 7. 41 A104 at 91:3-10 (“Because of the sensitivity of evidence found on any cell phone, but especially the cell phone of a young girl, the State, I think, appropriately didn’t give me the cell phone. . . .”). 42 A15-16. 43 A32-35. 44 A105-107. 45 Id. 46 A89. 7 was not disclosed in discovery because the State did not receive Photo 1 until the evening before trial.47 Defense counsel objected to the admission of Photo 1.48 The Superior Court sustained Patterson’s objection and excluded Photo 1 from evidence. 49 “[L]ooking at the totality of the circumstances,” the trial judge ruled, “[I]f it’s not – and it appears that it’s not part of the cell phone dump, I’m not allowing it. To the extent you have other pictures that show us her hairstyle or how she looked, I guess, that is part of the dump, I’ll allow that.”50 The court took a recess, and while on recess, the State reviewed the extraction.51 The State located and submitted another photo depicting D.L. in late 2017 that was included in the extraction (“Photo 2”).52 Patterson also objected to Photo 2, arguing that the State’s production of the cell phone extraction did not constitute a “meaningful disclosure” under Rule 16 because of its size and defense counsel’s access to it.53 The trial judge overruled the objection and admitted Photo 2 into evidence.54 On March 16, 2020, the trial judge found Patterson guilty of one count of invasion of privacy in violation of 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(9). On August 6, 2021, the court sentenced 47 A92. 48 A90-91. 49 A100. Patterson later offered Photo 1 into evidence to rebut the admission of Photo 2. A165-166. 50 A100. 51 A101. 52 Id. 53 A103-104. 54 A104. 8 Patterson to two years at Level V incarceration, suspended for 12 months at Level III probation.55 Patterson then filed a timely notice of appeal.