Opinion ID: 1993228
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State's Right to Appeal a Dismissal

Text: The government had no right to appeal in a criminal proceeding at common law. State v. Bailey, Del.Supr., 523 A.2d 535, 537 (1987) (citations omitted). However, statutes permitting appeals by the government in criminal matters have been enacted throughout the country. Id. See also United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 95-96, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 2196-97, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978). In Delaware, the State has an absolute right to appeal from a final order of a lower court where the order constitutes a dismissal of an indictment or information or any count thereof, or the granting of any motion vacating any verdict or judgment of conviction where the order of the lower court is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment or information is founded or the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court over the person or subject matter. 10 Del.C. § 9902(a). This Court has previously concluded that Section 9902(a) must be construed as though it were punctuated and arranged as follows: The State shall have an absolute right to appeal to an appellate court a final order of a lower court where the order constitutes (a) a dismissal of an indictment or information or any count thereof; or (b) the granting of any motion vacating any verdict or judgment of conviction (1) where the order of the lower court is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment or information is founded, or (2) where the order is based on the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court over the person or subject matter. State v. Fischer, Del.Supr., 278 A.2d 324, 326 (1971). Consequently, this Court has opined that the provisions of 10 Del.C. § 9902(a) provide for appeals by the State in three situations. Id. The parties agree that this Court must initially determine whether the case sub judice presents a situation which gives the State the right to appeal from the Justice of the Peace Court's dismissal of Pusey's charges, i.e., whether it was the final order of a lower court which constitutes a dismissal of an indictment or information or any count thereof. 10 Del.C. § 9902(a). To properly determine what constitutes a dismissal under Section 9902(a), an appellate court is required to make a two-step inquiry. First, had jeopardy attached and second, [if jeopardy had attached,] what was the basis for the [trial court's] decision? State v. Bailey, Del.Supr., 523 A.2d 535, 538 (1987). The first issue to be resolved by an appellate court when the State appeals in reliance upon the dismissal language of Section 9902(a) is whether jeopardy had attached. Id. When jeopardy has not attached, any termination of a criminal proceeding generally constitutes a dismissal, as that phrase appears in the text of 10 Del.C. § 9902(a). In fact, this Court has recognized that the `dismissal' portion of § 9902(a) has been successfully [invokved by the State] in many cases to appeal orders dismissing indictments or information before jeopardy has attached. Id. (emphasis in original). If an appellate court concludes that jeopardy has attached, it must then proceed to the second step of the dismissal inquiry and determine the basis for the trial court's termination of the prosecution. Such a determination is required because the State's right to appeal is restricted by the relevant statutory language to only those final orders that constitute a dismissal. 10 Del.C. § 9902(a). Therefore, if jeopardy had attached, the basis for the decision to terminate the prosecution is the sine qua non for determining whether the trial court's action constitutes a dismissal, from which the State has a right to appeal pursuant to 10 Del.C. § 9902(a). In this case, the State sought to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the Superior Court to review the Justice of the Peace Court's mid-trial decision to dismiss the charges against Pusey. Since jeopardy had attached, the Superior Court was required to examine the basis for the Justice of the Peace Court's ruling. Unfortunately, the Superior Court never made the requisite determination. Instead, the Superior Court held that any dismissal of criminal charges following attachment of jeopardy is an acquittal.