Opinion ID: 2809833
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Remand Following Oral Argument

Text: The Superior Court denied Brown‟s motion for a new trial on December 18, 2014. Although the Superior Court agreed with Brown that the alleged improprieties by the OCME employees were “newly discovered” and more than “merely cumulative or impeaching,” it determined that “the evidence was not of a nature that it would have probably changed the result,” as required to grant a new trial.23 The Superior Court noted that Woodson had been accused of stealing drugs in evidence for use as drugs—either for personal consumption or sale—and no OCME employee had been accused of planting drugs to obtain false convictions.24 The Superior Court also determined that even without the seized drug evidence, the other “evidence is simply overwhelming.”25 The Superior Court noted that Brown‟s voice was captured on wiretaps setting up the purchase of cocaine, he was observed arriving at Brooks‟ house and leaving several minutes later, and he was arrested with what he admitted was over 20 grams of cocaine that he intended to sell after receiving a proper Miranda warning. After he was released, apparently unaware of the wiretaps, Brown also called Brooks and described his arrest, which the jury was able to hear at trial. As a result, the Superior Court concluded that the new evidence of Woodson‟s alleged evidence-tampering “was not of a nature that it would have probably changed the result,” and denied Brown‟s motion for a new trial.26 Brown 23 State v. Brown, ID #1205025968A, at 3 (Del. Super. Dec. 18, 2014) (letter order) (citing Hicks v. State, 913 A.2d 1189, 1194 (Del. 2006)). 24 Id. at 4 (citing 2014 WL 6734821, at -9 (Del. Super. Nov. 17, 2014)). 25 State v. Brown, ID #1205025968A, at 6 (Del. Super. Dec. 18, 2014) (letter order). 26 Id. 9 appealed the denial of that motion, and the Superior Court accordingly returned the matter to this Court.