Submitted: December 3, 2014
On Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. DENIED.
James K. McCloskey, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for State of Delaware.
David Skoranski, Assistant Public Defender, Office of Public Defender, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendant.
CHARLES E. BUTLER JUDGE
The convictions in this case are the result of two burglaries that took place in Newark, Delaware on August 24, 2013 and August 31, 2013. Each burglary resulted in the same three charges against the Defendant: two counts of Burglary Second Degree, two counts of misdemeanor Theft, and two counts of Unlawful Use of a Debit Card.
Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty on all counts. After making an oral motion at the close of the State's case, Defendant timely filed the instant motion on November 5, 2014. The only issue presented by Defendant's motion is whether the State adduced sufficient evidence at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was guilty of the charges stemming from the August 24th burglary.
After reviewing the evidence presented at trial, this Court has determined that the State presented sufficient evidence to the jury during the trial such that the jury could determine that Defendant was guilty of the August 24th burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal is DENIED.
FACTS and PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant went to trial on all counts on October 28, 2014. The Court denied Defendant's oral motion for judgment of acquittal as to the three counts that stemmed from the August 24th burglary. On October 30, 2014, Defendant was found guilty on all counts, including both the August 24th and August 31stburglaries.
The evidence at trial established that in both burglaries, the victims were female University of Delaware students who were present and outside of their residences at the time of the burglaries. Wallets were stolen in both burglaries. Stolen debit cards from each burglary were used at the same Exxon gas station in Newark immediately following each burglary. The truck that the Defendant admitted he drives was seen on surveillance video in the area of both burglaries around the time of the crimes. The residences that were burglarized are approximately 500 feet apart.
The only differences between the two burglaries were that: (1) during the August 31st burglary, the female victim walked inside her home while the Defendant was inside and (2) a laptop was taken during the August 24th burglary. The victim of the August 31st burglary, who caught the Defendant in the act, identified the Defendant and picked him out of a lineup. Further, during a video interview of the Defendant, which was presented to the jury, Defendant ...