Eugene T. REED, Sr., Defendant Below, Appellant,
STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
This decision has been designated as "Table of Decisions Without Published Opinions." in the Atlantic Reporter.
Submitted: Feb. 1, 1994.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County; Cr.A. No. IN90-07-0930.
Superior Court, Sussex County, 1992 WL 179234.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, and WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
This 23rd day of March 1994, it appears to the Court that:
(1) Appellant Eugene T. Reed, Sr. ("Reed"), a former Democratic County Chairman for New Castle County, was convicted of Criminal Solicitation in the Second Degree after a jury trial in the Superior Court. Reed was also charged with Attempted Bribery, but the jury could not reach a verdict on that count.
(2) At Reed's trial, Ronald Aiello ("Aiello"), who had previously pleaded guilty to extortion, cooperated with federal and state authorities, and testified as a state's witness. He testified that, at a fund raising event, Reed had given him an envelope containing $5,000 and had indicated that it was from Frank Acierno, a real estate developer who was trying to obtain County Council approval to rezone certain property owned by Acierno. Aiello also testified that he tried to return the money to Reed at a subsequent meeting, but Reed encouraged Aiello to keep it. This meeting was secretly tape-recorded by Aiello, and the tape was admitted into evidence at Reed's trial.
(3) Reed appeals from his conviction and the Superior Court's denial of his motion for a new trial. Reed asserts three grounds for overturning his conviction: (a) the Superior Court improperly excluded three witnesses who were to testify for the purpose of impeaching Aiello; (b) there was insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict; and (c) the Superior Court's instructions regarding accomplice liability were defective.
(4) Reed called 11 witnesses at trial to attack Aiello's credibility. These witnesses testified regarding various earlier events, including alleged incidents of dishonesty involving Aiello and purportedly inconsistent statements. Reed also tried to introduce testimony from three additional witnesses regarding other prior collateral incidents bearing on Aiello's credibility. The Superior Court ruled that the testimony should be excluded because it was excessively collateral to the matters at issue and risked jury confusion. Moreover, the trial court found that the testimony of one of the witnesses, Aiello's attorney in his extortion case, was privileged and cumulative. Reed contends that the Superior Court violated Delaware Rule of Evidence ("D.R.E.") 402 and the Confrontation and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution by so ruling.
(5) We hold that the Superior Court properly excluded the testimony at issue. The testimony of two of the witnesses concerned specific incidents, unrelated to Reed, that allegedly contradicted Aiello's testimony regarding his motivation to take bribes. Reed argues that the testimony could be introduced under D.R.E. 402 because that Rule provides that all relevant evidence is admissible and the credibility of a witness is always relevant. This argument ignores the fact that D.R.E. 608(b), which specifically addresses the use of character evidence to attack credibility, gives the trial court discretion to limit such evidence "to avoid 'mini-trials' into the 'bad acts' of a witness which would require the use of extrinsic evidence to prove such acts." Weber v. State, Del.Supr., 457 A.2d 674, 680 (1983). The Superior Court properly exercised its discretion under D.R.E. 608(b) in this case to exclude the collateral evidence being proffered by Reed.
(6) Reed's constitutional claims are also without merit. Reed's right to a fair trial under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment was not abridged simply because the Superior Court excluded the testimony of three out of the fourteen witnesses called by Reed to attack Aiello's credibility. See U.S. v. Hasting,461 U.S. 499, 508-09 (1983) (recognizing that due process guarantees a fair trial, not a perfect trial). Similarly, Reed's right to cross-examine witnesses under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment was not infringed. "The main and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross-examination." Davis v. Alaska,415 U.S. 308, 315-16 (1974) (emphasis in original) (quoting 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1395, at 123 (3d ed. 1940)). Reed was given ample opportunity to cross-examine Aiello and was provided substantial latitude to attack Aiello's credibility, as evidenced by the 11 impeachment ...