State v. Holmes

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE )
)
v. ) Cr. ID No. 1210019908
)
ERIC HOLMES, )
Defendant. )
)
Upon the Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Production of Discovery
DENIED
Submitted: August 16, 2016
Decided: August 17, 2016
ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Production of
Discovery, the Court makes the following findings:
1. On October 27, 2012, Defendant, Eric Holmes, was one of the
occupants of a vehicle that was the subject of a police stop in the 800 block of
North Spruce Street. A reliable confidential informant had advised Wilmington
Police that within that vehicle was a firearm. Upon arrival, police located the
vehicle which was occupied by Holmes, codefendant Oliver Smith, and occupants
Latisha Powell and Deoddrick Purnell. All occupants were asked to exit the
vehicle, all complied and were placed in custody. A black Ruger “single six” .22
revolver was found in Holmes waistband which was loaded with five .22 caliber
Remington rounds. Inside his left leg pant pocket was one clear bag containing six
Endocet pills and eight Alprazolam (Xanax) pills. A black Intratec 9mm Luger
Tec 9 was found in codefendant Smith’s waistband which was loaded with thirty 9
mm Luger rounds with one in the chamber. Occupants Powell and Purnell were
questioned and released. Codefendant Smith was sentenced to Carrying a
Concealed Deadly Weapon to two years Level V suspended for six months Level
V, DOC discretion on September 13, 2013. Holmes was charged with Possession
of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, two counts of Carrying a Concealed Deadly
Weapon and Illegal Possession of a Controlled Substance.
2. Following trial on July 18, 2013, a jury found Holmes guilty of
Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited. Holmes was also declared
an habitual offender, and he was sentenced on May 16, 2014, effective March 7,
2013 to sixteen (16) years at Level V with credit for seven days previously served
followed by six months at Level IV DOC discretion, followed by 6 months at
Level III. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Holmes’ conviction on January
29, 2015.
3. Holmes filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Counsel was
appointed to represent Holmes on March 12, 2015.
4. Holmes now seeks a Court order compelling the State to produce
additional information regarding its investigation. Specifically, Holmes requests:
(1) the statements of L. Powell and D. Purnell (2) DNA results; (3) ballistic results.
2
5. Rule 61 does not contain a specific provision allowing a defendant to
receive discovery. However, the Court possesses “inherent authority under Rule
61 in the exercise of its discretion to grant particularized discovery for good cause
shown.”1 In allowing discovery, the Court will not allow a defendant “to go on a
fishing expedition through the government’s files in hopes of finding some
damaging evidence.”2 In order to determine whether a Rule 61 discovery request
should be granted, the court must determine whether the defendant has presented a
compelling reason for the discovery.3
6. Under Brady, the United States Supreme Court held that “suppression
by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process when
the evidence is material to either guilt or punishment, irrespective of good faith or
bad faith of the prosecutor.”4 Favorable evidence is evidence that is exculpatory
and impeaching, as well as explicit and implicit leniency offers to witnesses. 5
Furthermore, the timing of the disclosure is relevant and reversal of a conviction
1
State v. Jackson, 2006 WL 1229684, *2 (Del. Super. Ct. May 3, 2006)
2
Id. (citing Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1493 (3d Cir. 1994).
3
Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1198 (Del. 1996) (materials requested “[were] not
discoverable under a good cause standard because [defendant] has shown no compelling reason
for their discovery”); see also State v. Cabrera, 2008 WL 3853998, *4 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 14,
2008).
4
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).
5
See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675-76 (1985); Giglio v. United States 405 U.S. 150(1972); Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957); Jackson v. State, 770 A.2d 506, 514 (Del.
2001).
3
due to a delayed disclosure of Brady material “will be granted only if the defendant
was denied the opportunity to use the material effectively.”6
7. As Holmes concedes in his motion, all evidence subject to Rule 61
discovery was turned over long ago. In any case, Holmes has failed to demonstrate
a compelling reason for the discovery of the requested evidence – even if the
additional evidence exists.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this August 17, 2016
Defendant Eric Holmes’ Motion to Compel the Production of Discovery is
hereby DENIED.
Andrea L. Rocanelli
_____________________________
Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli
6
Atkinson v. State, 778 A.2d 1058, 1062 (Del. 2001).
4