Court Opinion

ID: 9389266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 14:04:00.761031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:26.247952
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE                              :
                                               :     I.D. No. 2209014188
            v.                                 :
                                               :
JOSHUA ROUSSELL,                               :
                                               :
                  Defendant.                   :

                                       ORDER

                               Submitted: April 5, 2023
                               Decided: April 24, 2023

Upon the State’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion to Suppress – GRANTED,
                               without prejudice

      On this 24th day of April 2023, after considering the State’s motion to strike
Defendant Joshua Roussell’s motion to suppress, and Mr. Roussell’s opposition, it
appears that:
      1.        A grand jury indicted Mr. Roussell for Possession of a Firearm during
the Commission of a Felony, Reckless Endangering First Degree, Aggravated
Menacing, and Offensive Touching. Mr. Roussell then filed a motion to suppress
evidence from use at trial. The State counters by moving to strike his motion because
it does not meet Superior Court Criminal Rule 41(f)’s specificity requirements.
      2.        A movant seeking to suppress evidence must allege facts and provide
legal authority that would warrant granting the motion if the facts are proven true
and the legal authority applicable.1 In this vein, a movant’s conclusory allegations,
without more, are insufficient to trigger an evidentiary hearing.2
       3.      The State contends that Mr. Roussell’s motion does not allege sufficient
facts and legal authority (1) to provide the State adequate notice of what he claims,
or (2) to permit the Court to determine what kind of proceedings are necessary to
address it.3 The State further contends that the Court should not hold an evidentiary
hearing on the matter because he included insufficient detail in the motion, which in
turn, makes summary dismissal appropriate.4
       4.      Here, the State correctly recognizes that Mr. Roussell’s motion contains
only conclusory allegations and recites no legal authority. As structured, his motion
does not provide the State sufficient notice regarding what he alleges to have been
unlawful police conduct. As a result, the State, as the opposing party, cannot
adequately respond to it. Furthermore, the motion does not provide the Court
sufficient information to determine what proceedings would be necessary to address
it.
       5.      Accordingly, the Court grants the State’s motion to strike. Because the
Court recognizes Delaware’s public policy that favors deciding cases on their

1
  See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 41(f) (requiring that “the motion . . . state the grounds upon which it is
made with sufficient specificity to give the state reasonable notice of the issues and enable the
court to determine what proceedings are appropriate to address them.”); State v. Wilson, 2008 WL
2192815, at *1 (Del. Super. May 23, 2008) (denying a motion to suppress without a hearing when
the motion was “completely devoid of legal authorities and facts relied upon”); State v. Manley,
706 A.2d 535, 540 (Del. Super. 1996) (holding that motions to suppress without sufficient factual
allegations may be summarily dismissed).
2
  Wilson, 2008 WL 2192815, at *1.
3
  See Turner v. State, 957 A.2d 565, 572 (Del. 2008) (citing these requirements taken from Super.
Crim. R. 41(f)).
4
  See State v. Small, 2010 WL 2162898, at *1 (Del. Super. May 27, 2010) (denying a motion to
suppress summarily where a party failed to cite legal authority); see also 10 Charles Alan Wright
& Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 675 (3d ed. 2004) (recognizing that
evidentiary hearings are required only if the motion alleges sufficient facts that, if proved, would
require the Court to grant relief, as opposed to general or conclusory claims, or ones based upon
suspicion and conjecture).
                                                 2
merits,5 the motion is granted without prejudice. Mr. Roussell may file a Rule 41(f)
compliant amended motion within ten days from the date of this Order. If he files
an amended motion, it must recite sufficient facts and legal authority to permit the
State to respond.
         6.      This Order will impact the trial schedule.   Mr. Roussell’s final case
review will be redesignated as a control date on April 25, 2023. The final case
review and trial are continued to create an adequate buffer to permit the State twenty
days to respond to any renewed motion. If an evidentiary hearing on the amended
motion is necessary, the Court will contact counsel to schedule a hearing prior to the
first day of trial.
         WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the State’s motion to strike
Defendant Joshua Roussell’s motion to suppress is GRANTED, without prejudice.
         IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                        /s/Jeffrey J Clark
                                                          Resident Judge

oc:      Prothonotary
         Counsel of Record

5
    Weston v. State, 554 A.2d 1119, 1122 (Del. 1989).
                                                 3