Moore v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
SHANNOEN MOORE, §
§ No. 313, 2017
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1505021330(N)
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: April 11, 2018
Decided: May 29, 2018
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, VAUGHN, SEITZ and
TRAYNOR, Justices, constituting the Court en banc.
ORDER
This 29th day of May 2018, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs
and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:
(1) A Superior Court jury found Defendant Below, Appellant Shannoen
Moore guilty of Aggravated Possession of Cocaine, Aggravated Possession of
Heroin, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree, after which Moore was sentenced to
a total of 16 years of incarceration, suspended after 4 years and 6 months, followed
by decreasing levels of probation.
(2) The charges were the product of a February 2013 investigation of
drug activity in the area of 30th and Washington Streets in the city of Wilmington
conducted by the Wilmington Police Department and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. During the investigation, after surveilling Moore and another
suspect, Rashaan Cherry, the investigating officers arrested Cherry and found a
substantial amount of heroin and cocaine in his silver Acura, one of two motor
vehicles Cherry maintained in the area. The heroin and cocaine were in four
separate bags, all of which were contained within another larger black trash bag.
One of the four bags within the larger trash bag contained 5,000 small bags of
heroin and, on its outside surface, three latent fingerprints belonging to Moore.
(3) At the close of the State’s evidence during Moore’s trial, he moved
for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to sustain a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the
cocaine and heroin.
(4) This Court reviews an appeal from a trial judge’s denial of a motion
for judgment of acquittal de novo “to determine whether any rational trier of fact,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find a
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all the elements of the crime.” 1 In
making this determination, we do not distinguish between direct and circumstantial
evidence.2
1
Lum v. State, 101 A.3d 970, 971 (Del. 2014).
2
Id.
2
(5) The cornerstone of Moore’s argument is that the only evidence
supporting his conviction were the fingerprints found on the bag containing heroin.
Moore notes that he was not with Cherry when Cherry was arrested and that the
police never saw Moore inside the silver Acura. Relying—as he did below—on
what he characterizes as the rule recognized in Monroe v. State,3 Moore argues that
when the incriminating evidence consists only of fingerprints at the crime scene,
the State must prove that the prints “could have been impressed only at the time the
crime was committed.”4 But even if Moore’s understanding of Monroe is correct,
that “rule” would not help him because his convictions did not rest solely on the
fact that his fingerprints were found on the bag containing the heroin.
(6) Here, the jury heard the testimony of the officers who had watched
Moore and Cherry in the days immediately prior to their seizure of the drugs from
Cherry’s car. Some of that surveillance was captured on video and presented to the
jury. Between the officers’ testimony and the surveillance video, the jury heard
and saw that Moore and Cherry were frequently seen hanging out in the vicinity of
Washington Street between 30th and 31st Streets in Wilmington. Moore and Cherry
appeared to be the center of attention and were frequently approached by both
pedestrians and motorists. According to the officers, on several occasions, one of
3
652 A.2d 560 (Del. 1995).
4
Opening Br. 10 (quoting Monroe, 652 A.2d at 564).
3
which was captured on video and viewed by the jury, Moore’s actions suggested
that he was acting as a “lookout” as Cherry would move toward the silver Acura.
(7) Although, when viewed in isolation, the objective of Moore’s and
Cherry’s conduct as described by the witnesses and depicted in the surveillance
video is not certain, taken in the light most favorable to the State, their behavior
supports an inference that they were engaged in concerted activity. And when the
cocaine and heroin found in Cherry’s silver Acura and Moore’s fingerprints on the
bag are added to the evidentiary mix—and that mix is evaluated in the light most
favorable to the State—that evidence supports an inference that Moore was
assisting Cherry in the sale of cocaine and heroin, using the silver Acura as a
convenient storage locker. Contrary to Moore’s contention, his conviction did not,
then, rest “solely on [his] fingerprints being found on an object at [the] crime
scene.”5
(8) We recognize that there are cases where the prosecution rests on
nothing more than the discovery of the defendant’s fingerprint in a place and under
circumstances where it is equally likely to have been left under innocent
circumstances as during the commission of the crime. But as the record shows,
this is not such a case.
5
Monroe, 625 A.2d at 564.
4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family
Court be AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice
5