State of Delaware v. Stephenson. ( 2014 )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
STATE OF DELAWARE )
)
)
v. ) I.D. 1212015998
)
)
JOSHUA C. STEPHENSON, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
1. This is a murder case in which Defendant is charged with
shooting and killing Myron Ashley on Christmas Eve, 2012. The State
contends the evidence will show that police were called to a home in
Wilmington where they found the victim. He had been shot twice in the
head by a .45 caliber weapon and was later pronounced dead at
Christiana Hospital. Two .45 caliber shell casings were found in the
living room and a .45 caliber handgun was found on a loveseat.
Defendant’s sister, who was the victim’s girlfriend, was upstairs when
she heard gunshots. She rushed downstairs and asked Defendant what
he had done. Defendant punched her in the face and fled. Defendant
was arrested the following day. DNA analysis showed blood found on
Defendant’s jacket to be that of the victim.
2. Defendant has filed a motion seeking to admit at trial evidence
that the victim had been convicted in 2007 of possession of a firearm
during the commission of a felony. Defendant does not show why this
evidence is relevant. Indeed his entire motion reads as follows:
1. At Defendant’s specific request of June 14, 2014, the
State supplied the criminal history of Myron Ashley
which is not attached but may be provided;
2. Myron Ashley has a conviction for Possession of a
Firearm During the Commission of a Felony in 2007.
Mr. Ashley was on Level 4 home confinement for this
conviction at the time of his death;
3. DNA evidence provided by the State indicates that
Defendant and at least two other persons were DNA
donors to the firearm used during the homicide in the
instant case; and
4. The State is seeking to enter evidence about
Defendant’s prior ownership of a gun for which he has
no conviction.
3. In the absence of any showing of relevancy, the court will deny
Defendant’s motion. The court notes in passing that a victim’s prior
conviction of a weapons offense may be admissible under certain
circumstances to support Defendant’s claim of self defense. In Tice v.
State 1 the Supreme Court held that evidence of prior violent acts of the
victim may be admissible to show self defense:
Since one of the factors that influences the
reasonable belief of a defendant, threatened with
imminent assault, is the defendant's knowledge
or awareness of the victim's past acts of
violence, these instances are relevant for their
proper noncharacter purpose. Subject to the
satisfaction of the requirements articulated in
Getz [v. State 2] the defense was entitled to use
this evidence under [Delaware Rules of Evidence]
404(b) to show the fear experienced by the
defendant, and thus, establish the subjective
1 624 A.2d 399 (Del. 1993).
2 538 A.2d 726 (Del. 1988).
2
state of mind required to assert the claim of self-
defense. 3
4. The court has some doubt whether the rule in Tice is broad
enough to encompass the present case. Here the conviction was for
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and the
underlying felony was possession with intent to distribute. Because the
prior conviction did not involve an act of physical violence, the court has
difficulty seeing how it would be probative of the claim the defendant
acted in self defense. The court need not decide the issue, however. A
necessary predicate to the admissibility of a victim’s prior conviction in a
self defense case is that the defendant had actual knowledge of that
conviction at the time he ostensibly acted in self defense. 4 Defendant
does not allege in his motion that he was aware of the victim’s prior
conviction for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
Accordingly his motion is DENIED.
Dated: October 30, 2014 John A. Parkins, Jr.
Superior Court Judge
oc: Prothonotary
cc: John W. Downs, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington,
Delaware
Kathryn van Amerongen, Office of the Public Defender, Wilmington,
Delaware
3 Id. at 402. (emphasis in original).
4 Wright v. State, 25 A.3d 747, 754 (Del. 2011) (“[E]vidence of a victim's prior bad acts
may be admissible to support a claim of self-defense where the defendant had actual
knowledge of the victim's prior bad acts.”)
3