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. Hixon

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent

May 23, 2019

STATE OF DELAWARE,
v.
GREGORY L. HIXON, Defendant.

          Submitted: April 8, 2019

         Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars. Denied.

          Lindsay A. Taylor, Esquire of the Department of Justice, Dover, Delaware; attorney for the State.

          Edward C. Gill, Esquire of the Law Office of Edward G. Gill & Associates, Georgetown, Delaware; attorney for the Defendant.

          ORDER

          HON. WILLIAM L. WITHAM, JR. RESIDENT JUDGE.

         INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court is Defendant Gregory Hixon's (hereinafter "Defendant") Bill of Particulars pertaining to evidence seized as the result of a traffic stop conducted by Delaware State Police.[1] After carefully considering the motion, the State's response in opposition, and record, it appears to the Court that:

         1. The Court incorporates its factual findings per its May 23, 2019 order pertaining to Defendant's Motion to Suppress based on the vehicle stop.[2]

         2. After Defendant fled the traffic stop conducted by Tfc. Solda, Tfc. Osgood observed the Maxima (Defendant's vehicle) and attempted to initiate a traffic stop. The Maxima fled that attempt by running a stop light, illegally passing another vehicle, and speeding between 100 - 120 mph.

         3. Defendant was next spotted by Cpl. Dukes, who observed the Maxima stop in the north parking lot of the Attorney General's Office in Downtown Dover.

         4. On March 29, 2019, Defendant filed an untimely motion for a bill of particulars, [3] but the Court permitted the motion despite its untimeliness.[4] The State provided its response, in opposition, on April 8, 2019.

         5. Defendant seeks certain information from the State pertaining to Defendant.[5] Defendant asserts, despite failing to cite any case law or statutory authority in support, nor the precise way that the bill of particulars would aid his defense, the requested information would permit Defendant to properly defend himself, protect him from double jeopardy, and aid the jury in understanding the State's allegations.[6]

         6. In response, the State argues the requested information has already been provided to Defendant in the form of police reports and MVR footage. Those resources, the State contends, depict the offenses that Defendant was charged. The State further asserts that Defendant's purpose in seeking the bill of particulars is purely conclusory, and that he has further failed to elaborate how the information would alleviate any perceived issues.[7]

         7. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds no sufficient grounds to grant Defendant's ...


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.