Court Opinion

ID: 9948534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 16:05:15.259143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:22.987700
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE                   )
                                    )
      v.                            )      ID Nos. 2107004126; 2109000366;
                                    )              2109003432
ISRAEL LECOMPTE,                    )
                                    )
      Defendant.                    )

                           Submitted: March 4, 2024
                            Decided: March 6, 2024

                                   ORDER

     Upon the State of Delaware’s Motion in Limine to Admit Prior Bad Acts
                                   DENIED.

Joseph Grubb, Esquire, Erika R. Flaschner, Esquire, and Anthony J. Hill, Esquire
Deputy Attorneys General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 820 N. French Street,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attorneys for the State of Delaware.
Zachary A. George, Esquire, HUDSON JONES JAYWORK & FISHER, LLC, 225
South State Street, Dover, Delaware 19901; Adam Windett, Esquire, HOPKINS &
WINDETT, LLC, 438 South State Street, Dover, Delaware 19901, Attorneys for
Defendant Israel Lecompte.

WHARTON, J.
      This 6th day of March 2024, upon consideration of the State of Delaware’s

Motion in Limine to Admit Prior Bad Acts (“Motion”); 1 Defendant Israel

Lecompte’s (“Lecompte”) Answer,2 and the record in this case it appears to the

Court that:

      1.      Lecompte is facing 79 charges,3 mostly related to the time frame from

June 9, 2021 to July 10, 2021.4 The Indictment charges Illegal Gang Participation,

Murder First Degree, Attempted Murder First Degree, Conspiracy First Degree,

Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, Robbery First Degree,

Reckless Endangering First Degree, Conspiracy Second Degree, Theft of a Motor

Vehicle, Receiving Stolen Property, and Disregarding a Police Officer’s Signal. The

Motion seeks to admit evidence of three carjackings occurring in Pennsylvania – one

of July 1st and two on July 10th.5

      2.       The following facts are taken from the Motion. On July 1, 2021 at

approximately 9:10 p.m., a black 2020 Nissan Maxima with tinted windows and

1
  State’s Mot. in Limine, D.I. 31. (Docket items are from ID No. 2107004126.)
2
  Def.’s Answer to State’s Mot. in Limine.
3
  D.I. 21. Originally, Lecompte was charged with 81 counts, but the State entered
nolle prosequis on two counts of Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon and
submitted an amended indictment. References to specific counts are to the amended
indictment.
4
  Count 1 charges Lecompte with Illegal Gang participation from on or between
November 11, 2018 to July 14, 2021. D.I. 8.
5
  State’s Mot. in Limine, D.I. 31.

                                         2
black rims was stolen at gunpoint in Philadelphia by two men.6 The men also took

the victim’s cell phone and a .38 caliber revolver.7 No arrests have been made in

that carjacking.8   The next day, Quinton Dorsey was murdered in Wilmington.9

The shooter and a shorter black male arrived in a black Nissan Maxima with tinted

windows, black rims, and an out of state license plate.10 Lecompte was identified as

the shooter from a photo line-up. 11 Lecompte is charged with receiving stolen

property for being in possession of the stolen Nissan Maxima on July 2nd.12

      3.    Two days later, a woman was robbed at gunpoint in Wilmington by two

black males while pumping gas at a gas station.13 The robbers’ vehicle appeared to

be a black Nissan with tinted windows and black rims.14 About two hours later, a

man was robbed at gunpoint while mowing a neighbor’s lawn in Wilmington.15 The

robber was in a black 4-door sedan with tinted windows.16 Lecompte was identified

in a photo line-up.17 While taking the victim’s statement, Wilmington police officers

6
  Id. at 2.
7
  Id. at 3.
8
  Id.
9
  Id.
10
   Id.
11
   Id.
12
   Id.; Amended Indictment Count 27.
13
   Id. at 3-4.
14
   Id. at 4.
15
   Id.
16
   Id.
17
   Id.

                                         3
observed the suspect vehicle in both robberies drive by on a nearby street. 18 The

vehicle appeared to be a black Nissan Maxima with tinted windows and black rims.19

About 20 minutes later, shots were fired a few blocks away.20 Witnesses stated that

the shooter was in a black Nissan Maxima with tinted windows and black rims.21

Shell casings from this shooting were ballistically matched to casings from the

Quinton Dorsey homicide two days earlier.22 Lecompte is charged with receiving

stolen property for being in possession of the stolen Nissan Maxima on July 4th.23

      4.     The next day, Matima Miller was shot and killed in Wilmington.24 A

vehicle involved was described by witnesses as a dark colored Nissan. 25

Surveillance videos showed a black Nissan Maxima with tinted windows and black

rims in the area.26 Projectiles recovered from this homicide were consistent with the

.38 caliber family.27 On July 7th, the stolen black Nissan Maxima was recovered in

Claymont.28 Fingerprints lifted from the Maxima matched Lecompte.29

18
   Id.
19
   Id.
20
   Id.
21
   Id. at 5.
22
   Id.
23
   Id.; Amended Indictment Count 37.
24
   Id.
25
   Id.
26
   Id. at 5-6.
27
   Id. at 5.
28
   Id.
29
   Id. at 6.

                                         4
       5.         On July 10, 2021, two vehicles, a blue Honda CRV and a 2007 red

Chrysler were stolen in Pennsylvania at gunpoint by two black males.30 The Honda

CRV was stolen in Philadelphia at about 6:06 a.m.31 One of the robbers took the

Honda, while the other fled in a black car.32 The Chrysler was stolen in Chester at

about 7:35 a.m. 33 One of the robbers was wearing a black hoodie with white

drawstrings and a white logo on the left chest.34 The Honda was recovered on July

10th in Chester at 9:57 a.m.35 Surveillance video and witnesses establish that a black

male wearing a ski mask got out of the stolen Honda and got into the Chrysler at

about 7:35 a.m.36

       6.        Prior to both carjackings in Pennsylvania, at approximately 3:34 a.m.,

in Wilmington, a 2020 silver Nissan Maxima was stolen by two men.37 That vehicle

was later recovered in Philadelphia on July 18th.38 At about 4:03 a.m., Wilmington

Police captured an Instagram Live video on the account “izzyioo” 39 The video

depicted Lecompte, wearing a black hoodie with white drawstrings and a white logo

30
   Id. at 7.
31
   Id.
32
   Id.
33
   Id.
34
   Id.
35
   Id.
36
   Id. at 7-8.
37
   Id. at 6.
38
   Id.
39
   Id.

                                            5
on the upper left chest, a black head cover, and black latex gloves. 40 He appears to

be heading north on I-95 towards Philadelphia.41 A second Instagram Live video

depicts Lecompte wearing the same sweatshirt, but not wearing gloves.42

      7.   At approximately 4:15 p.m. there was a call for shots fired from a vehicle

in Wilmington on Jefferson Street.43 The suspect vehicle was a red Chrysler and one

of the shooters was wearing a black hoodie with white drawstrings.44 A high speed

chase ensued resulting in the Chrysler crashing. 45 The occupants fled, but the

description of one of them matched the clothing Lecompte was wearing in the

Instagram Live videos. 46 A fingerprint from the Chrysler matched Lecompte. 47

Also, a cell phone was recovered with a State of Delaware identification card

belonging to Lecompte.48 Lecompte is charged with receiving stolen property in

connection with the Chrysler.49

      8.     The State moves to admit evidence of the July 1st carjacking of the 2020

Nissan Maxima and the July 10th carjackings of the Honda CRV and the 2007

39
   Id. at 6-7.
41
   Id at 7.
42
   Id.
43
   Id. at 8.
44
   Id.
45
   Id.
46
   Id.
47
   Id.
48
   Id.
49
   Amended Indictment Count 72.

                                         6
Chrysler pursuant to D.R.E. 404(b).50 Specifically, the State argues that evidence of

these bad acts should be admitted to prove identity, preparation and opportunity. 51

Alternatively, the State contends the evidence is admissible under the Inextricably

Intertwined Doctrine.52

      9.     While conceding that identity and opportunity are proper purposes for

admitting evidence of prior bad acts under D.R.E. 404(b), Lecompte argues that the

evidence should not be admitted because its probative value is substantially

outweighed by its prejudicial effect. 53

      10.    “[A] party who intends to introduce evidence pursuant to D.R.E. 404(b)

should first seek a ruling from the trial judge as to the admissibility of the

evidence.”54 “Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to

prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character

or trait.”55 However, “[t]his evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such

50
   State’s Mot. in Limine, at 9, D.I. 31.
51
   Id.
52
   Id. at 21-22.
53
   Def.’s Ans to State’s Mot. in Limine. Lecompte appears to be under the
mistaken impression that the State also is seeking to admit evidence of the .38
caliber revolver stolen with the 2020 black Nissan Maxima on July 1st.53 He
devotes a good bit of argument opposing admission of that evidence.53 The State
represents that it will not seek admission of that evidence.53
54
   D.R.E. 404, Comment.
55
   D.R.E. 404(a)(1).

                                           7
as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,

absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”56

      11.    In Getz v. State,57 the Delaware Supreme Court identified six factors a

trial court should take into account when considering the admissibility of evidence

from other crimes under D.R.E. 404(b):

             (1) The evidence of other crimes must be material to an
             issue or ultimate fact in dispute in the case. If the State
             elects to present such evidence in its case-in-chief it must
             demonstrate the existence, or reasonable anticipation, of
             such a material issue. (2) The evidence of other crimes
             must be introduced for a purpose sanctioned by Rule
             404(b) or any other purpose not inconsistent with the basic
             assumption against evidence of bad character of criminal
             disposition. (3) The other crimes must be proved by
             evidence which is plain, clear and conclusive. (4) The
             other crimes must not be too remote in time from the
             charged offense. (5) The Court must balance the probative
             value of such evidence against its unfairly prejudicial
             effect, as required by D.R.E. 403. (6) Because such
             evidence is admitted for a limited purpose, the jury should
             be instructed concerning the purpose for admission as
             required by D.R.E. 105.58

Regarding Getz’s fifth factor, D.R.E. 403 allows the exclusion of relevant evidence

“if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of

the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue

56
   D.R.E. 404(b)(2).
57
   538 A.2d 726 (Del. 1988).
58
   Id. at 734 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

                                           8
delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”59 Deshields v.

State60 identified the following nine considerations for the D.R.E. 403 balancing

test:

              (1) the extent to which the point to be proved is disputed;
              (2) the adequacy of proof of the prior conduct; (3) the
              probative force of the evidence; (4) the proponent's need
              for the evidence; (5) the availability of less prejudicial
              proof; (6) the inflammatory or prejudicial effect of the
              evidence; (7) the similarity of the prior wrong to the
              charged offense; (8) the effectiveness of limiting
              instructions; and (9) the extent to which prior act evidence
              would prolong the proceedings.61

        12.   The first Getz factor requires that the evidence of other crimes must be

material to an issue or ultimate fact in dispute. Here, due to video surveillance and

witness testimony, there appears to be little, if any, dispute about what happened in

each of the incidents to be tried. What is disputed is the identity of the person who

committed the charged crimes. Therefore, the Court must consider whether the other

crimes evidence is material to the issue of identification. In other words, the Court

must consider whether the evidence is relevant, meaning that the evidence “has any

logical tendency to make an ultimate fact in consequence more or less probable.”62

59
   D.R.E. 403.
60
   706 A.2d 502 (Del. 1998).
61
   Id. at 506.
62
   Ward v. State, 2020 WL 5785338, at *5 (Del. Sept. 28, 2020) (citing Getz, 538
A.2d 734; D.R.E. 401).

                                           9
         13.   The Court first turns to the crimes alleged to be related to the black

Nissan Maxima. A black Nissan Maxima with tinted windows and black rims was

identified in the Quinton Dorsey murder on July 2nd, the robbery of a woman

pumping gas in Wilmington on July 4th, the robbery of a man mowing his neighbor’s

lawn the same day, a shooting about 20 minutes after that robbery, and the murder

of Matima Miller on July 5th. The Maxima was recover on July 7th. Fingerprints

recovered from it matched Lecompte. The identity of the occupant(s) of the Maxima

during those incidents manifestly is relevant to an issue or ultimate fact in dispute.

The Court finds the first Getz weighs in favor of the State.

         14.   The second Getz factor favors the State as well. Identity, opportunity,

and preparation (plan) are purposes specifically sanctioned by Rule 404(b).

         15.   The third Getz factor requires that the evidence to be introduced be

“plain, clear, and conclusive.”63 The evidence that the carjackings occurred is not

disputed. Further, the presence of Lecompte’s fingerprints in the black Nissan

Maxima and the Chrysler, together with witness testimony, clothing descriptions,

Instagram Live videos, surveillance videos, and Lecompte’s identification in the

Chrysler constitute plain, clear, and convincing evidence that Lecompte committed

the carjackings. The third Getz factor favors the State.

63
     Getz, 538 A.2d at 734.

                                           10
      16.    The other crimes and the crimes in the case here occurred within a 10-

day period. Moreover, the other crimes occurred during the same time frame as the

crimes to be tried here. They are concurrent with the charged crimes. Thus, under

Getz’s fourth factor, the crimes are not too remote from the charged crimes.

      17.    Getz’s fifth factor requires the Court to assess whether the probative

value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect under

D.R.E. 403 considering the Deshields factors. 64 The Court concludes as to the

Deshields factors: 1) the identity of the suspect is wholly disputed; (2) video

surveillance, witness testimony, clothing descriptions, and fingerprint identifications

are adequate means of proving the prior conduct; (3) the evidence is strongly

probative of Lecompte’s identity, making it more probable that Lecompte committed

the charged crimes; (4) the State does not have a strong need for this evidence to

connect Lecompte to the charged crimes since Lecompte can be connected to the

vehicles used in the charged crimes through witness identification, clothing

descriptions, abandoned property, and, most importantly, fingerprints; (5) less

prejudicial proof is available in the form of a stipulation from Lecompte that the

vehicles were stolen, 65 or alternatively, limiting the testimony to the fact that the

vehicles were stolen without additional testimony as to how they were stolen; (6)

64
  Deshields, 706 A.2d at 506.
65
  Lecompte has offered such a stipulation. See, Def’s Ans. to State’s Mot. in
Limine, at 5.

                                          11
evidence of gunpoint carjackings is inflammatory and creates a substantial risk that

the jury will conclude Lecompte acted in the charged crimes consistently with a bad

character; (7) the charged crimes include gunpoint robberies, of which the

Pennsylvania carjackings are a variety; (8) limiting instructions are likely to be

effective because the proffered evidence is no more inflammatory, and possibly less

inflammatory than the charged crimes; and (9) the State believes that the

introduction of the proffered evidence will not extend the estimated length of the

trial.

         18.   After carefully considering the Deshields factors, the Court finds that

the probative value of the proposed bad act evidence is substantially outweighed by

the danger of unfair prejudice. The Court agrees with Lecompte that when the

vehicles were stolen is probative. When they were recovered is probative. But how

they were stolen is not. In other words, evidence that Lecompte was in the vehicles

between July 1st and July 10th is entirely probative. But, whether he bought them,

rented them, borrowed them, or carjacked them at gunpoint is not. Moreover, much

of the evidence proving that Lecompte carjacked the Nissan Maxima and the

Chrysler is the same evidence that places him in those vehicles during the charged

crimes and is admissible without reference to the carjackings.           Because the

carjacking of the Honda CRV only serves as a “bridge” to the carjacking of the

                                          12
Chrysler, and because the carjacking of the Chrysler is inadmissible, evidence of the

carjacking of the Honda CRV likewise is inadmissible.

       19. The sixth Getz factor involves a limiting instruction. Given the Court’s

determination to exclude the bad act evidence, no limiting instruction is necessary.

       20.    Alternatively, the State seeks admission of the carjackings under the

Inextricably Intertwined Doctrine. 66 It argues that exclusion of the carjacking

evidence ‘“would create a chronological and conceptual void that would likely result

in significant confusion.”’67 In its view such a chronological void would exist as to

when Lecompte first had access to the Nissan Maxima and the Chrysler that were

used in the crimes.68 Given that the State will be permitted to introduce evidence

when the vehicles were stolen, it is clear to the Court that no such chronological void

will exist.

       21.    The Court finds that both the Getz factors and the Deshields factors

weigh in against admission of the bad act evidence. Nor is the Court persuaded that

such evidence should be admitted under the Inextricably Intertwined Doctrine.

66
   State’s Mot. in Limine, at 21-23, D.I. 31.
67
   Id. at 21 (quoting State v. Pope, 632 A.2d 73, 76 (Del. 1993)).
68
   Id. at 23.

                                          13
    THEREFORE, the State’s Motion to Admit the Prior Bad Acts is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                           /s/ Ferris W. Wharton
                                            Ferris W. Wharton. J.

                                  14