Court Opinion

ID: 9840203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 16:04:00.756044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:11:25.399267
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOSEPH COVERDALE,                       §
                                        §
              Defendant-Below           §     No. 319, 2022
              Appellant,                §
                                        §     Court Below—Superior Court
                                        §     of the State of Delaware
                    v.                  §
                                        §     Cr. ID No. 1911015487 A/B(N)
STATE OF DELAWARE,                      §
                                        §
              Appellee.                 §

                           Submitted: July 12, 2023
                           Decided:   September 14, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

                                      ORDER

        This 14th day of September, 2023, after careful consideration of the parties’

briefs, the argument of counsel, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court

that:

        (1)   On the morning of November 22, 2019, having received a shots-fired

complaint, officers from the Wilmington Police Department (“WPD”) responded to

the 200 block of North Franklin Street. The officers arrived on the scene within

minutes, but the shooters had fled. In the course of his investigation, Detective Joran

Merced—the lead detective in the case—obtained video-footage from the local
“CitiWatch”1 surveillance camera, located at the corner of 2nd and Franklin Streets.

The video showed that, before the shots-fired incident, two men approached and

robbed an individual in a red jacket, later identified as Markell Rollins, on Franklin

Street. A man wearing a black puffy jacket with a hoodie, later identified as Joseph

Coverdale, pulled out what appeared to be a firearm with an extended magazine and

showed it to the man in the red jacket before reaching into the man’s pockets. The

other man, wearing a blue jean jacket, later identified as Jamil T. Biddle,2 reached

into the pockets of the man in the red jacket and retrieved what appeared to be an

unknown quantity of money, before he walked away with the man in the black

hoodie, around the corner and out of camera view. The video also captured an

exchange of gunfire further down the street shortly after this apparent robbery. The

man in the blue jean jacket can be seen in this video as well. Whether Coverdale

can be seen in this video is less clear.

       (2)    Detective Merced reviewed the video of the robbery on the day of the

incident but was unable to identify any of the individuals in the video.                    In

consequence, he created an “attempt-to-identify” flyer using several screenshots

from the video, which he disseminated to WPD officers in an effort to make

1
 CitiWatch cameras are located throughout Wilmington and are livestreamed to the WPD.
2
  By order dated July 31, 2023, this Court affirmed the conviction of Coverdale’s co-defendant,
Jamil T. Biddle. See Biddle v. State, 2023 WL 4876018 (Del. July 31, 2023).
                                              2
identifications. Several officers in the WPD’s Crime Streets Unit also watched the

video.

         (3)   Ultimately, officers identified the victim, Rollins, as well as Coverdale

and Biddle. And on November 25, Detective Merced spoke with Rollins, who

advised that he was approached by a person with a gun and robbed of $150 cash.

That same day, Detective Merced applied for and was granted an arrest warrant for

Coverdale and Biddle. The police arrested Coverdale on December 31.

         (4)   A New Castle County grand jury indicted Coverdale and Biddle for

robbery in the first degree, two counts of possession of a firearm during the

commission of a felony, two counts of conspiracy in the second degree, and two

counts of attempted assault in the first degree. Coverdale was also indicted for

carrying a concealed deadly weapon, possession of a firearm by a person prohibited,

and possession of ammunition by a person prohibited.

         (5)   Neither Coverdale nor Biddle moved for relief from their joinder for

trial, so they were scheduled for trial together.

         (6)   Before trial, Biddle filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude, among

other things, testimony from police witnesses identifying him as one of the

individuals depicted in the surveillance video. Coverdale joined in the motion,

challenging the officers’ identification of him in the video. Relevant to the issues

raised in this appeal, Biddle and Coverdale contended that the officers’ testimony

                                            3
was inadmissible lay opinion testimony that “usurp[ed] the fact-finding function of

the jury.”3

         (7)    The Superior Court held a pretrial hearing to allow voir dire

examination of the officers so that the court could determine whether to allow the

officers to give lay opinion testimony identifying Coverdale and Biddle as the

suspects in the video. At the hearing, four police officers testified: Detective Gaetan

MacNamara, Corporal David Schulz, Corporal Leonard Moses, Sergeant Kecia

Rosado—each of whom is or was a member of WPD’s Street Crimes Unit.

         (8)    Each officer testified about their prior personal interactions with

Coverdale and their familiarity with his physical attributes, including his

approximate height and weight as well as his facial features. Detective MacNamara

related that he had personally interacted with Coverdale 35 to 45 times, Corporal

Schulz testified that he had interacted with him 10 to 15 times, while Corporal Moses

said that he had done so on approximately 30 to 50 occasions. Sergeant Rosado had

far fewer interactions with Coverdale—five to six times—then the other officers,

but she had observed him in public approximately 50 to 100 times. All of the

testifying officers were familiar with Coverdale’s ornate neck tattoo.

         (9)    After hearing this testimony and viewing the video, the Superior Court

denied the defendants’ motion in limine. The court was convinced that a proper

3
    App. to Answering Br. at B25.
                                            4
foundation was laid and that the officers had special familiarity with Coverdale and

Biddle based on the officers’ numerous interactions with the codefendants. And

specifically as to Coverdale, the court observed that

       [t]he issue . . . is . . . whether the video and/or photograph is so crystal
       clear that the officers would not need to testify and the jury could
       simply take a look at what was on the video and make a determination,
       in that case the video did have Mr. Coverdale with a hood on. In
       looking at the video, it was not crystal clear that the person sitting in
       court today is that individual. And just based on the foundation that I
       believe the officers have established with respect to Mr. Coverdale and
       their familiarity with him, the court finds that their testimony in this
       regard again would fall within the permitted parameters of Saavedra [v.
       State] and even Thomas [v. State].4
       (10) At trial, the State first called Detective Merced to authenticate the video

and the “attempt-to-identify” flyer that had been disseminated to the WPD officers.5

Thereafter, the State called Corporal Schulz, Corporal Moses, and Detective

MacNamara as witnesses to offer lay opinion testimony identifying Coverdale and

Biddle in the video.

       (11) Each of the officers also testified at trial about their special familiarity

with Coverdale and Biddle; this foundational testimony largely tracks the testimony

given at the pre-trial hearing as described above.

4
  App. to Opening Br. at A323 (citing Saavedra v. State, 225 A.2d 364 (Del. 2020) and Thomas v.
State, 207 A.3d 1124, 2019 WL 1380051 (Del. March 26, 2019) (TABLE).
5
  App. to Opening Br. at A430–32, A447–9.
                                              5
         (12) Corporal Schulz identified Coverdale and Biddle in court and, after the

video was played, identified each of them in the video. He testified that Coverdale

was wearing a black puffy coat with a black hood up over his head and black pants

with a red stripe. Corporal Schulz noted that Coverdale had a neck tattoo in a

photograph taken one month after the robbery but that the tattoo was not exposed in

the video. He stated that Coverdale had “very light-in-color eyes.”6 He also testified

that Coverdale appeared to be holding a firearm with a large extended magazine.

         (13) Next, the State next called Corporal Moses, who identified Coverdale

and Biddle in court.        After the video was played, Corporal Moses identified

Coverdale as the person wearing “all black, black hoodie up on his head,” “with the

firearm with the extended magazine.”7              Corporal Moses testified that, despite

Coverdale’s hoodie, he could see what appeared to be “red on his neck,” which he

believed was part of Coverdale’s neck tattoo.8 He stated that Coverdale’s facial

features looked similar to the subject in the video. Corporal Moses then identified

Biddle as the person wearing a “jean jacket” in the video. He testified that, despite

Biddle’s changed appearance,9 Biddle was the same person he identified in the

video.

6
  Id. at A486.
7
  Id. at A506–08.
8
  Id. at A509.
9
  At trial, Biddle appeared with a new hairstyle (lengthy braids) and wearing glasses. See id. at
A710–11. According to the officers, before his arrest, Biddle had shorter hair and did not wear
glasses. See id. at A728–29.
                                               6
         (14) Before the State called its next witness, Coverdale’s counsel renewed a

prior objection, arguing that additional officers should not be allowed to testify on

the issue of identity because such testimony would be cumulative. But the court

noted that Corporal Moses’s testimony differed from Corporal Schulz’s testimony,

because only Corporal Moses testified that he could see Coverdale’s tattoo in the

video. As a result, the court determined that the State could call one more officer

on the issue of identity.

         (15) The State then called Detective MacNamara, who identified Coverdale

and Biddle in the courtroom. After watching the video, Detective MacNamara

identified Coverdale as the person wearing a “black-in-color puffier coat with the

black-in-color hooded sweatshirt up around his head” and Biddle as the person

wearing the “denim jacket.”10 He testified that he was not able to see Coverdale’s

neck tattoo in the video but noted that Coverdale has a “lighter skin tone” and his

eyes are “rather distinct” because they “kind of jump out of his head a little bit.”11

He indicated that Coverdale’s facial features were similar to those of the person in

the video wearing the black hoodie. He also testified that, despite Biddle’s changed

appearance at trial, Biddle was the same individual that he identified in the video.

10
     Id. at A529–31.
11
     Id. at A530–32.
                                           7
      (16) The State then called Corporal Flemming, a member of the forensic

services team, who responded to the scene on November 22, 2019, and took

photographs of the evidence, including the casings and cartridge collected from the

scene. Afterwards, the State called Detective Stephey, who works in the ballistics

section of the WPD. He testified that the casings collected were nine millimeters.

The State then recalled Detective Merced who testified that he did not observe

Coverdale possessing a firearm in the beginning of the video, which was indicative

of concealment, and that Coverdale does not have a permit to carry a concealed

deadly weapon.

      (17) After the State rested its case-in-chief, Coverdale’s counsel moved for

judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State failed to prove the element of theft

essential to the charge of robbery in the first degree, because there was no evidence

that any property was taken from the victim. In addition, he argued that the State

failed to prove the assault charges, because the State’s theory was that Coverdale

fired back at the unknown men in the video from a position that could not be seen

in the video.

      (18) The Superior Court drew all inferences in the light most favorable to

the State and determined that a rational trier of fact could find that Coverdale and

Biddle were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charged offenses. The court

therefore denied Coverdale’s motion. The court noted, however, that, “barring

                                         8
identity, it’s going to be a tough call on the . . . attempted assault charges[,]” which

are “purely circumstantial.”12 Coverdale did not put on a defense. Biddle called his

fiancé, Adejah Carter, as an alibi witness but did not testify himself.

          (19) During the State’s closing argument, the prosecutor argued that the

video showed that Coverdale held Rollins at gunpoint while Biddle put his hand into

the front jacket pocket of Rollins and took out what appeared to be money. The

prosecutor argued that Biddle transferred the money into his left hand and then

continued going through Rollins’s pockets, before Coverdale and Biddle walked

away counting the money. The prosecutor also argued that Coverdale was in

physical possession of the firearm and that Coverdale concealed the firearm until he

approached Rollins with it to commit the robbery.

          (20) The court then instructed the jury regarding, among other things, the

identification of the defendants. It stated:

          [t]o find the defendants guilty, you must be satisfied beyond a
          reasonable doubt that the defendants have been accurately identified[,]
          that the wrongful conduct charge in this case actually took place[,] and
          that the defendants were in fact the persons who committed the act. If
          there is any reasonable doubt about the identification of the defendants,
          you must give the defendants the benefit of such doubt and find the
          defendants not guilty.13

12
     Id. at A695.
13
     Id. at A871.
                                             9
      (21) The next day, the jury returned its verdict, finding Coverdale guilty of

robbery in the first degree, possession of a firearm during the commission of a

felony, carrying a concealed deadly weapon, and conspiracy in the second degree.

The jury acquitted Coverdale, however, as to both counts of attempted assault in the

first degree as well as the related weapon and conspiracy charges. Immediately after

the jury verdict, the trial judge found Coverdale guilty of the person-prohibited

charges, which had been severed from the other charges. After a presentence

investigation, the court sentenced Coverdale to 11 years of Level V incarceration,

followed by decreasing levels of supervision, and Coverdale appealed to this Court.

      (22) Coverdale makes three arguments on appeal. First, like Biddle, he

argues that the Superior Court erred when it denied his motion in limine to exclude

police officer testimony identifying him as one of the individuals depicted in the

incriminating surveillance video. Second, Coverdale contends that, because there

was no evidence that a theft occurred and theft is an essential element of robbery,

the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the robbery

charge.   Third, the Superior Court erred by allowing the prosecutor to make

unfounded prejudicial remarks during closing argument even though Coverdale did

not object to the remarks when they were made. We see no merit in Coverdale’s

arguments and, for the following reasons, affirm his convictions.

                                        10
       (23) This Court reviews the Superior Court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse

of discretion.14 We review the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for judgment of

acquittal de novo to determine whether a rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence

in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the essential elements,

beyond a reasonable doubt.15 Where defense counsel fails to object to alleged

prosecutorial misconduct at trial and the trial judge does not intervene sua sponte,

this Court reviews the claim only for plain error.16

       (24) Coverdale contends that the officers’ identification of the persons

depicted on the surveillance video ran afoul of D.R.E. 701’s limitations on lay

opinion testimony. D.R.E. 701, which governs opinion testimony by lay persons,

provides that

       [i]f a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an
       opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s
       perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony
       or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific,
       technical or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
       (25) Coverdale’s argument relies heavily upon our decision in Thomas v.

State.17 In Thomas, we questioned “how the testimony of a police officer—or any

other witness without a particular expertise in comparing a videographic

representation of a person with a suspect or defendant—would be helpful to the

14
   Thomas, 2019 WL 1380051, at *2.
15
   Wright v. State, 980 A.2d 372, 376–77 (Del. 2009).
16
   Baker v. State, 906 A.2d 139, 150 (Del. 2006).
17
   Thomas, 2019 WL 1380051.
                                              11
factfinder in resolving an identification issue.”18 But our more recent guidance in

Saavedra permits such lay opinion testimony in certain situations.

       (26) In Saavedra, we explained that “[b]efore a law enforcement witness

uses a video clip or photograph to identify the defendant, due caution should be

exercised to ensure that a proper foundation is laid establishing, to the trial court’s

satisfaction, that the witness has a special familiarity with the defendant that would

put him in a better position than the jury to make the identification.” 19 We further

noted that, “in determining whether the witness occupies such a position, the court

should also consider whether the images from which the identification is to be made

‘are not either so unmistakably clear or so hopelessly obscure that the witness is no

better suited than the jury to make the identification.’”20

       (27) As described above, in this case, the Superior Court considered the voir

dire examination of the officers and was satisfied that the State established a proper

foundation for the admission of the officers’ lay opinion testimony at trial in

accordance with Saavedra. In reaching this conclusion, the court determined, first,

that the officers had a special familiarity with Coverdale and Biddle based on

numerous prior interactions with each of them, and, second, that the video was

“within the buffer zone of hopelessly obscure or abundantly clear such that the

18
   Id. at *3.
19
   Saavedra, 225 A.3d at 380–81.
20
   Id. at 381 (quoting U.S. v. Jackman, 48 F.3d 1, 4–5 (1st Cir. 1995)).
                                                12
[officers’] testimony . . . would not run afoul of . . . [this] Court’s instructions [in

Saavedra].”21

       (28) As we ruled in Biddle v. State, “the trial court faithfully applied the

factors that we set forth in Saavedra and did not err in admitting the [identification]

evidence.”22 We noted further in Biddle that the trial court included an appropriate

identification instruction to the jury.23 Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the

Superior Court’s denial of the motion in limine.

       (29) Coverdale next argues that the court’s denial of his motion for judgment

of acquittal was error, because the video evidence alone was not sufficient to

establish that Coverdale committed a robbery. In particular, Coverdale claims that

without testimony that property or money was taken from Rollins, the evidence of

theft—an element of robbery—was insufficient. He further argues that, had the

court properly granted his motion, he would have also been acquitted of the related

firearm and conspiracy charges as well.

       (30) Under 11 Del. C. § 832,

       [a] person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when the person
       commits the crime of robbery in the second degree and when, in the
       course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom,
       the person or another participant in the crime:
       ...

21
   App. to Opening Br. at A322.
22
   2023 WL 4876018, at *8 (Del. July 31, 2023).
23
   Id.
                                             13
       (2) [d]isplays what appears to be a deadly weapon or represents by word
       or conduct that the person is in possession or control of a deadly
       weapon[.]

A person commits robbery in the second degree

       “when, in the course of committing theft, the person uses or threatens
       the immediate use of force upon another person with intent to (1)
       [p]revent or overcome resistance to the taking of the property or to the
       retention thereof immediately after the taking; or (2) [c]ompel the
       owner of the property or another person to deliver up the property or to
       engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of the theft.”24

A person commits theft “when the person takes, exercises control over or obtains

property of another person intending to deprive that person of it or appropriate it.”25

To convict Coverdale of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony,

the State was required to prove that Coverdale knowingly and unlawfully possessed

a firearm during the robbery.26 Conspiracy in the second degree requires the State

to prove that Coverdale agreed with another person, that one, the other, or each of

them would commit a robbery, and that one, the other, or each of them committed

an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy.27

       (31) The State argues that the video evidence, along with the police officers’

identification testimony, provides sufficient evidence of theft to sustain Coverdale’s

robbery conviction. More specifically, the State contends that the video shows that

24
   11 Del. C. § 831(a).
25
   11 Del. C. § 841(a).
26
   11 Del. C. § 1447A.
27
   11 Del. C. § 512.
                                          14
two men, one wearing a black hoodie and wielding a firearm—Coverdale—and the

other wearing a jean jacket approached the victim, held him at gunpoint, and

rummaged through his pockets. The video shows, according to the State, that the

man in the jean jacket—Biddle—removed what appeared to be money from the

victim’s jacket, before he and the man in the black hoodie walked away. It also

contends that the video depicts Biddle counting the money after the robbery.

      (32) We have viewed the video and find the State’s characterization of it to

be fair and accurate. No doubt, one might quibble with whether the property Biddle

lifted out of Rollins’s pocket while Coverdale held him at gunpoint was U.S.

currency or some other form of property. But there is little, if any, doubt from the

video evidence that Biddle took something out of Rollins’s pocket, and that is

sufficient to satisfy the theft element of robbery. In sum, viewing the evidence in

the light most favorable to the State, the jury was presented sufficient evidence to

conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Coverdale, either as principal or an

accomplice, committed the theft element necessary to convict him of robbery in the

first degree. This conclusion, in turn, is sufficient to support Coverdale’s related

possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and conspiracy

convictions.

                                        15
       (33) Finally, Coverdale contends that he was materially prejudiced by the

State’s misconduct in closing argument, namely, the prosecutor’s argument that

Coverdale had a gun and that money was taken from Rollins.

       (34) When confronted with a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, “we first

engage in a de novo review to determine whether the prosecutor’s actions rise to the

level of misconduct. If we determine that no misconduct occurred, the analysis ends

there. . . .”28 If we find misconduct, we then determine whether the issue was fairly

presented below and, if it was not, we review “only for plain error.”29 We recently

summarized the plain error standard:

       For an error to be “plain” under this standard, it must be so clearly
       prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the very fairness and
       integrity of the trial. Findings of plain error are limited to material
       defects that are apparent on the face of the record, basic, serious and
       fundamental in their character. 30
Coverdale concedes that he did not object to the statements that form the basis of his

prosecutorial-misconduct claim.

       (35) Here, the prosecutor could not fairly be charged with misconduct.

Although the firearm Coverdale was charged with possessing was not introduced

into evidence—because it was not recovered—the jury could reasonably infer from

the surveillance video that the item in Coverdale’s hands, which appeared to be a

28
   Watson v. State, __ A.3d ___, 2023 WL 5030026, at *5 (Del. Aug. 8, 2023).
29
   Baker, 906 A.2d 139, 148.
30
   Watson, 2023 WL 5030026, at *5 (quotations, footnotes, brackets, and ellipsis omitted).
                                               16
firearm and which Coverdale certainly intended Rollins to believe was real, was

actually a firearm. And an inference was not required to determine that Biddle took

something out of Rollins’s pocket as Coverdale brandished the weapon; the jury was

able to watch it happen on the video. Stated simply, asking the jury to believe what

they could plainly see was not improper. Even less was it plainly erroneous for the

court to refrain from interceding sua sponte on Coverdale’s behalf.

      NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

                                             BY THE COURT:

                                             /s/ Gary F. Traynor
                                                   Justice

                                        17