Court Opinion

ID: 9400694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-08 20:04:56.718711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:47.285050
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE                  )
                                   )
  v.                               )            Case No.: 2209010579
                                   )
JAVON TURNER,                      )
                                   )
  Defendant.                       )

                        SUBMITTED: June 6, 2023
                         DECIDED: June 8, 2023

                          OPINION AND ORDER

            Upon Consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress:
                                 DENIED

Karin Volker, Deputy Attorney General, of THE DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Wilmington, Delaware, for the State of Delaware.

Alanna Farber, Esquire, of THE OFFICE OF DEFENSE SERVICES, Wilmington,
Delaware, for Javon Turner.

JONES, J.
                                             INTRODUCTION

        Defendant Javon Turner stands charged with Possession of a Firearm by a

    Person Prohibited, Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon, and Resisting Arrest. He

    has now filed this, a motion to suppress an on-scene police identification that

    implicated him as a suspect in this case.           In short, Mr. Turner argues the

    identification was unduly suggestive and violated his due process rights.

        Having considered the parties’ arguments at the May 26, 2023 suppression

    hearing, including the testimony of the officers involved in identifying Mr. Turner,

    the Court finds the police on-scene identification of Mr. Turner was reliable.

    Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, Mr. Turner’s motion must be DENIED.

                                         FACTUAL OVERVIEW

        On September 21, 2022, Officers Roy and Gervasi of the Wilmington Police

    Department were on proactive patrol at the intersection of 23rd and Bowers Streets

    in Wilmington, Delaware.1 While there, they noticed a blue Toyota CHR travelling

    northbound on Bowers Street.2 The officers were aware that a blue Toyota CHR

    with matching plates had been stolen during an armed carjacking in nearby Chester,

    Pennsylvania a few weeks before.3

        After observing the Toyota, the officers activated their emergency equipment.4

    When they did so, the Toyota took off.5 The officers gave pursuit.6 During the

1
  Supp. Hr’g. Tr. (May 26, 2023) at 5:3-5.
2
  Id. at 5:22-23; 6:1.
3
  Id. at 6:14-18.
4
  Id. at 8:19-20.
5
  Id. at 9:10-11.
6
  Id. at 9:17-19.
                                                    2
    chase, Officer Gervasi observed two young black males in the Toyota’s driver and

    passenger seat.7

         The Toyota eventually came to a stop in the 2600 block of Bowers Street.8

    There, the two occupants exited the vehicle and fled in separate directions.9

    According to Officer Gervasi, the occupant from the driver’s seat wore a black

    sweatshirt and green pants, and the passenger side occupant wore a grey sweatshirt

    and black pants.10

         Officers Gervasi and Roy chased them on foot.11 The passenger side occupant,

    who was later identified as Mr. Turner, turned around multiple times before and

    during the foot pursuit and made his face viewable to Officer Gervasi.12 After Mr.

    Turner removed his grey sweatshirt in the area of 24th and Claymont Street, Officer

    Gervasi lost sight of him.13 Officer Gervasi then returned to the abandoned Toyota

    and met Officer Roy, who had located a loaded semi-automatic firearm under the

    car’s passenger seat.14

         By this point, Officers Trent, Martin, and Linkhorst had arrived on scene to assist

    in locating the Toyota’s occupants.15 Officer Linkhorst quickly located the driver,

    later identified as Clyde Penny, in an alley near Claymont Street.16 Upon receiving

7
  Id. at 8:14-15.
8
  Id. at 10:21-23; 11:1-2.
9
  Id. at 11:18-21.
10
   Id. at 12:4-9.
11
   Id. at 11:22-23; 12:1.
12
   Id. at 12:12-16; 13:8-11; 19:9-20.
13
   Id. at 13:8-11.
14
   Id. at 14:2-4, 53:1-10.
15
   Id. at 11:5-7; 14:17-18.
16
   Id. at 53:23; 54:1-2.
                                                  3
     word of Mr. Penny’s arrest, Officer Gervasi radioed that the occupant-at-large

     “ha[d] a grey hoodie on.”17

        Officer Martin then began to canvass the area.18 He first went to a local Family

     Dollar to review video surveillance of the surrounding region.19 But, finding

     nothing of evidentiary value, he returned to his vehicle and began on his way back

     to the abandoned Toyota.20 As he drove through the 1300 block of East 24th Street,

     he observed Mr. Turner “emerge through two buildings . . . carrying a grey hooded

     [sweatshirt.]”21 Mr. Turner stopped in his tracks when he saw Officer Martin, as if

     he was shocked.22 Officer Martin subsequently detained Mr. Turner, placed him in

     the back of his patrol car, and requested Officer Gervasi respond to the scene for the

     purpose of identifying Mr. Turner.23 Officer Gervasi arrived “five to ten minutes

     later” and positively identified Mr. Turner as the second occupant of the Toyota.24

                                      STANDARD OF REVIEW

        To satisfy due process, pretrial identifications resulting from a suggestive

     process must comport with the two-part analysis set forth by the United States

     Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers.25

        First, the Court must assess whether an impermissibly or unnecessarily

     suggestive procedure, arranged by a state actor, procured the identification.26 As

17
   Id. at 32:1-8.
18
   Id. at 63:10-12.
19
   Id. at 64:16-19.
20
   Id. at 64:18-19.
21
   Id. at 64: 8-11.
22
   Id. at 64:12-16.
23
   Id. at 64:19-20; 65:1-6.
24
   Id. at 66:6-14.
25
   Byrd v. State, 25 A.3d 761, 764 (Del. 2011).
26
   Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228, 248 (2012); see also Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 197-99 (1972).
                                                           4
     the Delaware Supreme Court has observed, the inquiry into whether an

     identification was impermissibly suggestive is “invariably fact-driven.”27 The

     defendant has the burden of proof in the first step of the Biggers analysis.28

         If the defendant meets this burden, then the Court must determine whether,

     because of that impermissible suggestion, the identification is not constitutionally

     “reliable” – i.e., whether the identification presents “a very substantial likelihood of

     irreparable misidentification.”29 The Biggers Court articulated five factors to aid in

     assessing reliability. Each of these factors arises in the usual context of a selective

     identification, in which a witness must select and identify a stranger after a crime:

                  First, the witness’s opportunity to view the criminal at the time
                  of the crime; second, the witness’s degree of attention at the
                  time of the crime; third, the accuracy of the witness’s prior
                  description of the defendant; fourth, the witness’s level of
                  certainty when identifying the suspect at the confrontation; and
                  fifth, the length of time that has elapsed between the crime and
                  the confrontation.30

     In sum, the Supreme Court’s constitutional due process analysis addresses the

     particular risks that impermissible suggestion can create during the identification of

     an unknown perpetrator after a crime. That analysis accommodates several different

     concerns, including protecting the due process rights of the defendant, deterring

     police misconduct, and allowing the factfinder to hear and weigh identification

     evidence that is sufficiently reliable from a constitutional perspective.31 A jury, of

     course, is perfectly capable of weighing the pluses and minuses of such an

27
   Richardson v. State, 673 A.3d 144, 147 (Del. 1996).
28
   Byrd, 25 A.3d at 764.
29
   Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 at 110, 114 (1977).
30
   Byrd, 25 A.3d at 764 (citing Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199).
31
   Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199.
                                                             5
     identification. That is why mere suggestiveness, in and of itself, does not per se call

     for exclusion of identification.32

                                           ANALYSIS

         For present purposes, the Court will assume without deciding that Officer

     Gervasi’s identification of Mr. Turner was impermissibly suggestive. In light of

     that assumption, the Court need not address the first Biggers prong, and, instead,

     will move to the five-factor reliability test.

         The Delaware Supreme Court’s holding in Richardson v. State is instructive in

     implementing that test.33 Richardson tasked the Supreme Court with determining

     whether, under Biggers, the “show-up” identification of a handcuffed defendant

     standing next to an officer at a police station was sufficiently reliable. 34 The

     identifying witness in Richardson, who was surrounded by relatives as she made the

     identification, observed the defendant through a window one hour and fifteen

     minutes after the crime.35 Based on these facts, Richardson found the identification

     to not be impermissibly suggestive, and that even if it was, under the totality of the

     circumstances it was sufficiently reliable.36 Thus, the Richardson identification

     satisfied both prongs of the Biggers test.37

         Here, as in Richardson, the Court concludes that Officer Gervasi’s identification

     of Mr. Turner was reliable under Biggers. As Officer Gervasi testified, he observed

32
   Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199.
33
   See generally id.
34
   Id.
35
   Id.
36
   Id. at 148.
37
   Id.
                                                      6
     Mr. Turner’s face multiple times while chasing him both in vehicle and on foot.38

     He also noticed that Mr. Turner wore a grey sweatshirt and watched as he removed

     the sweatshirt amid the pursuit.39 Officer Gervasi focused on Mr. Turner during

     both the vehicle and foot chases, and, according to he and Officer Martin, positively

     identified Mr. Turner as the occupant from the passenger side of the Toyota twenty

     minutes after last seeing him.40 The Court has no doubt that Officer Gervasi’s

     certainty in the identification was aided by the recognition of Mr. Turner’s face and

     clothing, as well as his physical characteristics.41

           In light of the above, the Court is satisfied that Officer Gervasi’s identification

     of Mr. Turner was reliable as enunciated in Biggers. No further consideration of

     the first Biggers factor – including whether Officer Gervasi’s identification was a

     “show-up” or “police identification,” as the parties dispute – is necessary.

                                                  CONCLUSION

           For the above reasons, Mr. Turner’s motion to suppress is DENIED.

           IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                                             /s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr.
                                                                            Francis J. Jones, Jr., Judge

     cc:           Original to Prothonotary
                   Karin Volker, Deputy Attorney General
                   Alanna Farber, Assistant Public Defender

38
   Id. at 12:12-16; 13:8-11; 19:9-20.
39
   Id. at 13:9-11.
40
   Tr. at 44:7-17; 66:11-14; 83:14-19. Mr. Turner’s post-hearing argument makes repeated mention of credibility
issues with respect to the officers’ testimony at the suppression hearing. But based on the totality of the evidence, the
Court finds the alleged credibility issues do not rise to a level warranting disregard of their testimony. The jury may
see things differently, but that is for it – and not the Court – to decide following the presentations of evidence at trial.
41
   Id. at 37:2-6. At the suppression hearing, Officer Martin testified that he took note of Mr. Turner’s physical
characteristics during the vehicle and foot chases.
                                                                7