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. Gleason

Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex

December 30, 2019

State of Delaware
v.
Matthew Gleason,

          Submitted: November 19, 2019

          Richard F. Stokes Judge

         Dear Counsel:

         Pending before the Court is an appeal that the State of Delaware ("the State") has brought from a dismissal of this case by the Court of Common Pleas ("CCP"). That court suppressed evidence due to a discovery violation and ultimately, dismissed all charges against Matthew P. Gleason ("defendant"), which included a charge of driving under the influence ("Dili"). This is my decision reversing the decision below and remanding the matter to CCP.

         The pertinent facts appear below.[1]

         Defendant was arrested on a DUI and a charge of not having proof of insurance on or about March 2, 2019. The State filed an information in CCP on March 21, 2019.

         The reason for the initial stop was that a call had been made regarding a domestic incident and when the officers responded, they saw a male leaving the driveway and pulled him over. The evidence establishing that the officers received this information was discoverable. This evidence consisted of a recording of the dispatch from 911 to the officer and printouts from SUSCOM that an officer might have read and on which the officer might have relied. These printouts are called "ten times." They accompany any SUSCOM audio recording and are self-authenticating.

         The State provided defense counsel with discovery. A cover sheet to the discovery indicated the State had provided a SUSCOM 911 dispatch recording and a copy of the "ten times."

         Five days before the trial, the Deputy Attorney General prosecuting the case sent defense counsel an email stating that he believed all the discovery had been provided but if defense counsel believed otherwise, he should contact the Deputy Attorney General. Defense counsel did not respond to this email.

         The matter came before CCP for trial on June 17, 2019. A number of cases were set to be tried that date; however, because this case was the oldest on the trial docket, it was required to be tried first. As of June 17, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court's speedy trial guidelines required criminal cases in CCP, including DUI cases, to be disposed of within 90 days of the filing of an information.[2] As noted earlier, the State filed the information in this case on March 21, 2019. As of the trial date on June 17, 2019, the 90-day speedy trial guideline deadline had not passed, contrary to the belief of the trial judge.

         The testifying officer was not present at the time the matters discussed below were addressed in CCP. Instead, he was on his way to court in order to testify.

         When the matter was called, defense counsel stated he had not received a recording of the dispatch from 911 to the officer or the "ten times." There was a lack of clarity in the record regarding the 911 dispatch. The State provided defense counsel with a recording with codes. Because the Deputy Attorney General was unsure of what the codes meant, he could not conclusively state that the recording with codes constituted the 911 dispatch at issue. He needed to speak to the arresting officer to obtain that clarification and, as noted above, that officer was on his way to court. If the recording with codes was the 911 dispatch, then the State had provided the 911 dispatch recording. Defense counsel argued that because the State had not given the defense the "ten times," the Court should bar the State from providing any testimony about the stop of the vehicle and without such, there was no reasonable articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle.

         The State explained that its cover sheet to the discovery showed that the State had provided both the 911 recording and the "ten times" to defense counsel. The trial court found otherwise.

         In response to the Court's question to defense counsel as to whether defense counsel was aware that he did not get the "ten ...


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.