Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Davenport

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle

March 4, 2015

STATE OF DELAWARE,
v.
FRANK DAVENPORT, Defendant.

Submitted: February 10, 2015

Upon Defendant's Motion in Limine (as to statements by Holly Wilson in October 2009) DENIED.

HONORABLE ANDREA L. ROCANELLI JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion in Limine. Defendant seeks to exclude certain evidence on the grounds that it is inadmissible hearsay. The underlying case concerns the death of Holly Wilson, which occurred on January 16, 2010. The State has charged Defendant Frank Davenport with Wilson's murder. In connection with the murder trial scheduled for June 2015, the State seeks to admit evidence of an alleged incident involving Defendant and Ms. Wilson in October 2009.[1] Defendant's pending Motion seeks to limit the State's use of such evidence at the June 2015 murder trial.

Specifically, Defendant moves to exclude: (i) a letter to Defendant allegedly hand-written by Ms. Wilson in October 2009; (ii) statements by Ms. Wilson to her son about the alleged October 2009 incident; and (iii) statements to police officers by Ms. Wilson and her son related to the alleged October 2009 incident.[2]Defendant concedes that the evidence at issue is non-testimonial. Moreover, Defendant emphasizes that his challenge does not implicate his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. Rather, Defendant seeks a ruling in advance of trial to exclude the State's evidence as inadmissible hearsay.[3] The State opposes Defendant's Motion on the grounds that the challenged evidence is admissible and should be presented for the jury's consideration. This is the Court's decision on Defendant's Motion in Limine.

1. Statements by Ms. Wilson's Son

It is expected that Stephen McElwee, Ms. Wilson's son, will testify as a witness at trial and will be subject to examination and/or cross-examination by Defendant's lawyers. Accordingly, to the extent that Defendant objects to testimony by police officers about what Mr. McElwee told police, those objections are OVERRULED. To the extent that the State intends to present Ms. Wilson's statements to her son through the testimony of Mr. Elwee, then the admissibility of those statements by Ms. Wilson is governed by the analysis set forth below.

2. Ms. Wilson's Statements

Defendant challenges the admissibility of certain out-court-statements made by Ms. Wilson. Specifically, Defendant challenges: (i) the hand-written letter found by police in October 2009, which the State claims Ms. Wilson wrote at the time of the October 2009 incident; (ii) Ms. Wilson's statements to her son, made at the time of the October 2009 incident; and (iii) Ms. Wilson's statements to police about the October 2009 incident.

Under the Delaware Rules of Evidence ("D.R.E."), an out-of-court written or verbal statement by someone other than the declarant testifying offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted qualifies as hearsay.[4] Hearsay is generally inadmissible unless the statement is privy to a recognized exception to the hearsay rule.[5] There are three hearsay exceptions applicable to Ms. Wilson's out-of-court statements.

(a) D.R.E. 803(2) – Excited Utterance

An excited utterance qualifies as an exception to the hearsay rule because it is a spontaneous statement made in reaction to an exciting event rather than the result of a reflective thought.[6] The statement is therefore considered reliable because the declarant is not in a position to fabricate the statement.[7] To determine if a statement qualifies as an excited utterance under D.R.E. 803(2), the Delaware Supreme Court explained that:

a statement must satisfy the following three requirements: '(1) the excitement of the declarant must have been precipitated by an event; (2) the statement being offered as evidence must have been made during the time period while the excitement of the event was continuing; and (3) the statement must be related to the startling event.'[8]

The Court further explained that the declarant must have personally perceived the startling event for a statement to be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.