The case involved Christina Ozdemir's conviction in Superior Court on two counts of felony interference with custody, based on evidence that she had withheld her children from their father in violation of prior custody rulings. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the convictions. The court held that five unredacted Family Court orders were improperly admitted because they contained hearsay statements, factual findings, and prejudicial characterizations of Ozdemir's conduct that had no probative value independent of the custody rulings themselves. Under Delaware evidence rules, the orders' probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the state's reliance on them at trial.
This case was a medical malpractice action in which patient John Houghton sued thoracic surgeon Dr. Nadiv Shapira and Christiana Care Health Services, Inc., alleging that Shapira negligently performed an off-label On-Q catheter procedure for rib-fracture pain and failed to obtain informed consent, with additional claims of vicarious and independent negligence against the hospital. A jury found both defendants liable and apportioned damages between them. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the patient, holding that the trial court should not have submitted a post-verdict supplemental question to the jury, that the original verdict and proximate-cause instructions were proper, and that the supplemental verdict must be vacated on remand.
In Ozdemir v. State, the Delaware Supreme Court considered whether unredacted Family Court orders could be admitted as evidence in a Superior Court trial for felony interference with custody. The court reversed the convictions, holding that the records were inadmissible hearsay and included highly prejudicial statements that outweighed their probative value under Delaware Rule of Evidence 403. The error was not harmless because the State relied on the orders to prove its case.
In this consolidated appeal from drug conspiracy convictions in Kent County, Delaware, appellants Ayers and Demby challenged the admission of wiretap recordings at trial, arguing that the evidence violated their confrontation rights under the state and federal constitutions because witnesses interpreted coded language without the declarants being available for cross-examination. The Delaware Supreme Court held that the recordings were nontestimonial and properly admitted to prove the conspiracy charges, finding no constitutional violation, and rejected the remaining claims including a motion to sever and double jeopardy arguments. The court affirmed the judgments of conviction but remanded solely for the merger of Ayers's drug dealing and aggravated possession counts for resentencing, as those offenses overlapped in their elements.
This case involved an appeal by James Davis, Jr. to the Delaware Supreme Court from a lower court decision against Correctional Officer Johnson and other defendants. The court dismissed the appeal because Davis failed to file his opening brief and appendix by the deadline and did not respond to a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of diligent prosecution. The dismissal was ordered under Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), as the appellant's failure to respond rendered dismissal unopposed.
This case involved an appeal by Edward Adams against Samantha Phillips from a jury trial decision in the lower court. The Delaware Supreme Court considered a motion to dismiss the appeal because the appellant failed to provide a transcript of the trial proceedings necessary for review. The appellant did not respond to the motion within the required timeframe, making the dismissal unopposed. The court therefore dismissed the appeal under its rules governing appellate procedure.