Carolyn Berger

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

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.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

procedure

The case involves an appeal filed by Chakkira Wonnum against the State of Delaware in the Supreme Court of Delaware. The court issued a notice requiring the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file an opening brief and appendix as required. Wonnum did not respond within the ten-day period, leading the court to treat the dismissal as unopposed. The court therefore dismissed the appeal under Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b) for lack of diligent prosecution.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal filed by Andrea Evans in the Delaware Supreme Court challenging a decision from the Family Court in her case against Charles Fields. The court issued a notice requiring the appellant to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed for failing to pay the Family Court filing fee and transcript costs, but she did not respond within the required time. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal pursuant to its rules on diligent prosecution and unopposed dismissals.

procedurefamily law

The case involves Reginald Wimbish appealing a decision from a Superior Court commissioner directly to the Delaware Supreme Court. The court issued a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction under Supreme Court Rule 29(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62. Wimbish failed to respond within the required 10-day period, so the court treated the dismissal as unopposed. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b).

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns an appeal filed by Shawanda Pollard against the State of Delaware challenging a Superior Court order entered on October 6, 2008. The appellant did not file the required notice of appeal within 30 days of that order, as mandated by Supreme Court Rule 6. After the Clerk issued a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, the appellant failed to respond within the allotted 10-day period. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal as unopposed under Supreme Court Rule 29(b).

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves an appeal by Patrick F. Croll from a February 6, 2009 order of the Superior Court in a matter brought by the State of Delaware. The Supreme Court of Delaware issued a notice requiring the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file the notice of appeal within the 30-day period mandated by Supreme Court Rule 6. The appellant did not respond to the notice within the required 10-day period. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal as unopposed under Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b).

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal filed by William Jay Hammons against the State of Delaware. The Delaware Supreme Court issued a notice requiring the appellant to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file an opening brief and appendix. The appellant did not respond to the notice within the required ten-day period. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal under Supreme Court Rule 29(b) as unopposed.

criminal lawprocedure

In Swanson v. State, the defendant was charged with possession of deadly weapons by a person prohibited and related offenses after police found shotguns and drugs at his girlfriend's home. During the first trial, a defense witness (the girlfriend) testified but then invoked her Fifth Amendment rights after some questioning, leading the trial court to declare a mistrial over the defendant's objection. The Delaware Supreme Court held that there was no manifest necessity for the mistrial because the witness could have been cross-examined on non-incriminating matters and alternatives like limiting the scope of questions were not explored, thus the double jeopardy clause prevents a retrial and the conviction must be vacated.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In Bunting v. State, the defendant appealed a criminal matter to the Delaware Supreme Court. The State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and to stay the briefing schedule. The defendant did not respond to the motions. Under the court's rules, the failure to respond was deemed consent to dismissal, leading the court to dismiss the appeal and render the stay motion moot.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal filed by Jeffrey W. Giannattasio against the State of Delaware. The Delaware Supreme Court issued a notice to show cause after the appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal under Supreme Court Rule 29(b). The appellant did not respond to the notice within the required ten-day period, leading the court to treat the dismissal as unopposed. The court therefore dismissed the appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b).

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Kirpat, Inc., which had its retail liquor license revoked by the Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission after findings of three sales of alcohol to an underage person over a six-week period. The Superior Court affirmed the revocation, and Kirpat sought a stay of that order pending appeal to the Supreme Court. The Superior Court denied the stay after finding no strong likelihood of success on the merits without considering other factors. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a stay motion requires balancing all four equitable factors from the Evans v. Buchanan test together, rather than focusing solely on the probability of success. It granted the stay because Kirpat faced irreparable harm to its business, there was no substantial harm to the Commission or public, and the appeal raised serious legal questions.

business & regulatoryprocedure