State of Delaware v. Madison.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
) Crim. ID No. 1312014951
v. )
) Supreme Court No. 147, 2015
)
JEROME MADISON )
Submitted: July 7, 2015
Decided: July 21, 2015
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
This 21st day of July, 2015, upon consideration of the Defendant’s Motion to
Compel (D.I. 72), the State’s response (D.I. 74), and the record in this matter, it
appears to the Court that:
(1) Defendant-Appellant Jerome Madison was convicted of eleven crimes
after a nonjury trial in this Court including, inter alia, first degree rape, attempted
rape, unlawful sexual contact, kidnapping and assault involving two different
victims. At trial, Madison was represented by counsel. At sentencing, Madison
was sentenced to a term that included forty-two years of imprisonment.
(2) His trial counsel filed Madison’s direct appeal to the Delaware
Supreme Court. The Office of Public Defender then substituted for trial counsel
but has since, at Madison’s urging, been discharged so that he may proceed pro
se. 1 His direct appeal remains pending before the Delaware Supreme Court with
Mr. Madison representing himself.2
(3) On July 7, 2015, Madison filed the instant “Motion to Compel/DNA
Results/Chain of Custody” asking that this Court compel the State to produce:
(a) the “chain of custody report concerning DNA samples taken from” the victims
and himself; and (b) “all scientific test results taken from” the victims and
himself.3 Presumably, this application is made pursuant to Superior Court
Criminal Rule 16(d)(3)(C), even though that is a rule governing pre-trial discovery
that requires both a showing of a party’s failure to comply with a proper Rule 16
discovery request and the filing of a timely motion after such failure.4
(4) The State has responded to Madison’s motion as follows: (1) during
the pendency of Madison’s direct appeal, this Court is without jurisdiction to
decide his motion; and (2) even if the Court could act on the motion, “DNA testing
was not requested nor performed because identity was not an issue in the case . . .
1
Madison v. State, Del. Supr., No. 147, 2015, Valihura, J. (June 30, 2015).
2
Id.
3
Def. Mot. to Compel, at 8.
4
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 16(d)(3)(C) (“Motion to compel. -- If a party fails to comply
with a request the opposing party may move for an order compelling compliance with the
request. A motion to compel shall be filed within ten days after the time for response or at such
other time as ordered by the court.”).
-2-
[b]oth Defendant and Defense counsel were made aware that DNA testing was not
requested prior to June of 2014.”5
(5) Does the filing of a direct appeal in a criminal case divest the Superior
Court of jurisdiction to consider a motion to compel discovery while the appeal is
pending? The general rule is that “the proper perfection of an appeal . . . divests
the trial court of its jurisdiction over the cause of action.” 6 There are exceptions to
the general rule. Our Supreme Court has recognized limited circumstances,
involving “collateral or independent matters,” where a trial court might exercise
concurrent jurisdiction. 7 But it is the general rule that is most-oft applied in a
criminal case,8 and that should be followed here. Madison’s is not a request as to
a “collateral or independent matter.”
(6) Before the Delaware Supreme Court only “the original papers and
exhibits [ ] shall constitute the record on appeal.”9 There is no “discovery” during
the pendency of an appeal. And the parties are not free to expand or supplement
5
State’s Ans. to Mot. to Compel, at 2.
6
Radulski ex rel Taylor v. Delaware State Hosp., 541 A.2d 562, 567 (Del. 1988).
7
Id.8
See Eller v. State, 531 A.2d 948, 951 (Del. 1987) (Superior Court was divested of
jurisdiction to rule on the motion for new trial when direct appeal was pending); Carter v. State,
2005 WL 1175938, at *1 (Del. May 16, 2005) (same for postconviction motion).
9
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 9(a); Id. 9(b) (the record on appeal contains all of the original papers,
photographs and documentary exhibits in the court below, along with the prepared transcript).
-3-
the record on appeal. 10 In turn, this Court has no jurisdiction to enter orders
designed to do so. If Madison prevails on appeal, any discovery matters would be
addressed by this Court before any potential re-trial. If he is unsuccessful on
appeal, expansion of the record and discovery matters can be addressed during any
postconviction proceedings.11
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Madison’s Motion to
Compel is DISMISSED, without prejudice, as this Court can take no action on
that application; his pending direct appeal divested this Court of jurisdiction to
address the merits of such Motion.12
/s/ Paul R. Wallace
Paul R. Wallace, Judge
Original to Prothonotary
cc: Elizabeth R. McFarlan, Esquire, Chief of Appeals
Karin M. Volker, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General
Mr. Jerome Madison, pro se
10
See generally Delaware Appellate Handbook § 4.14, at 4-xviii (2d ed. 1996).
11
See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(g) (providing that the Court “may direct that the record be
expanded by the parties by the inclusion of additional materials relevant to the determination of
the merits of the motion”); see also Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1197-98 (Del. 1996) (while
this Court’s Criminal Rule 61 makes no provision for additional discovery, the Court has found it
possesses “‘the inherent authority under Rule 61 in the exercise of its discretion to grant
particularized discovery for good cause shown’”—such discovery may be granted under a good
cause standard when an inmate demonstrates a “compelling reason for the[ ] [requested
material’s] discovery.”).
12
Walker v. State, 2000 WL 1535299 (Del. Oct. 10, 2000).
-4-