State v. Ford

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE )
)
v. ) ID No. 2104011636
)
TYLER FORD, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Upon Consideration of Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, Motion
for a New Trial, and Additional Jury Instruction Arguments:
DENIED.
SUBMITTED: March 27, 2023
DECIDED: April 19, 2023
Barzilai Axelrod, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, of THE DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Wilmington, Delaware, for the State of Delaware.
Joseph Hurley, Esquire, of THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH A. HURLEY, Wilmington,
Delaware, for Tyler Ford.
JONES, J.
INTRODUCTION
On October 12, 2022, a jury convicted Tyler Ford on one count of Murder
in the Second Degree, one count of Speeding, two counts of Improper Passing on
the Right, and one count of Disregarding a Red Light.1 Mr. Ford was convicted for
being the sole cause of a high-speed vehicle collision that ended horribly for him
and fatally for Nathaniel Milton, Jr.
The central dispute at trial was whether Mr. Ford possessed the requisite
mens rea to be convicted of Murder in the Second Degree.2 To that end, the State
argued the jury could infer Mr. Ford possessed a culpable state of mind. Mr. Ford
asked for, and the Court denied, judgment of acquittal after the State rested.
Now, Mr. Ford has filed these timely post-trial motions to re-challenge
the facts of his case in the context of Murder in the Second Degree’s defined mens
rea. For the reasons that follow, Mr. Ford’s motions must be DENIED.
FACTUAL OVERVIEW
During the afternoon of October 8, 2020, Aloura Shaver witnessed two
vehicles – a silver Camaro3 operated by Kyle Fischer and a blue Saab operated by
Mr. Ford – driving erratically on U.S. Route 40 towards the intersection of U.S. 40
and U.S. Route 896. Ms. Shaver, who was stopped at a red light, noted the blue
Saab was “flying” as it drove around other vehicles without a turn signal. When the
1
See Super. Ct. Crim. Docket, Case 2104011636, Docket Item (“D.I.”) 48.
2
The State presented evidence at trial indicating Mr. Ford was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the
collision. The jury found Mr. Ford not guilty of driving under the influence. Accordingly, the Court will not consider
any inference of Mr. Ford’s impairment from marijuana when analyzing whether the State met its mens rea burden.
3
At trial, Ms. Shaver called the Camaro a “Charger,” a similar sports car model.
2
light turned green, Ms. Shaver observed the blue Saab accelerate and drive onto the
left shoulder of the road to pass moving traffic as it traveled towards the intersection
of LaGrange Parkway and U.S. 40.4
Moments later, Annet Grier, a DART paratransit bus driver traveling on
U.S. 40, noticed the blue Saab and silver Camaro pass her bus on the right side.
According to Ms. Grier, the vehicles moved very fast, as if they were on a racetrack,
and the force of their speed caused her bus to shake when they passed her. Although
she had no difficulty seeing (and slowing down for) the upcoming red light on U.S.
40, Ms. Grier testified the blue Saab moved so fast it had no time to stop. After the
blue Saab passed her, Ms. Grier watched it drive through a turn-only lane at a red
light and collide with a truck operated by Nathaniel Milton, Jr.
At this point, the details of the collision are uncontroverted. There were
two thru-travel lanes in the direction Mr. Ford was heading, as well as a dedicated
turn lane off U.S. 40 for a residential neighborhood on LaGrange Parkway.5 Each
lane was controlled by a traffic light. Mr. Milton had the right of way as he turned
left out of the LaGrange Parkway neighborhood and onto U.S. 40. His vehicle
exploded immediately upon impact with Mr. Ford’s Saab. Mr. Ford walked away
from the scene. Mr. Milton died instantly.
4
According to Ms. Shaver, the silver Camaro followed close behind the blue Saab.
5
U.S. 40 also has two traffic-signal controlled left turn only lanes onto Peach Tree Drive. See St. Tr. Ex. 48 (photo
of W/B U.S. 40 approach to intersection).
3
Ms. Grier’s DART bus was equipped with audio and video enabled
cameras that captured the events before, during, and after the collision.6 The State’s
accident reconstructionist, Corporal John Breen of the Delaware State Police, used
the video to establish Mr. Ford was traveling between 91 to 96 miles per hour at the
time of impact. Through his measurements at the scene, Corporal Breen further
determined: (1) Mr. Ford would have been able to see the red light at U.S. 40 and
LaGrange Parkway from 928 feet away, and (2) roadway signage alone provided
Mr. Ford with 1,766.2 feet (or one-third of a mile) advanced notice of the upcoming
intersection.7
DISCUSSION
a. The Renewed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
I. Standard of Review
Superior Court Criminal Rule 29 governs Motions for Judgment of
Acquittal.8 The Court will grant a defendant’s motion “only when the State
presented insufficient evidence to sustain a verdict of guilt.”9 If a reasonable person
could conclude from the evidence that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable
6
See State’s Tr. Ex. 13 (DART bus video). The State presented the certified DART video to the jury at trial. The
video, which Ms. Grier testified was an accurate depiction of the events, included contemporaneous GPS data of the
bus’s speed, exact location, and acceleration forces. The video revealed Ms. Grier traveled at 46 miles per hour when
Mr. Ford’s blue Saab overtook the bus on the right. See id. at timestamp 16:33:33.
7
See St. Tr. Ex. 48 (photo of W/B U.S. 40 approach to intersection); see also St. Tr. Ex. 51 (depicting signage distances
on U.S. 40). Corporal Breen summarized his measurements in Figure 10 of his report as follows: the “right turn
begins” sign was 379.5 feet from the intersection (Point D); the blue “LaGrange” neighborhood sign was 81.2 feet
from Point D (Point C); the “traffic light ahead” warning sign posted on the north side (to Mr. Ford’s right) on U.S.
40 was 234.7 feet from Point C (Point B); and the “traffic light ahead” sign to Mr. Ford’s left was 142.8 feet from the
intersection (Point A).
8
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 29(a).
9
Vouras v. State, 452 A.2d 1165, 1169 (Del. 1982) (emphasis added). The review of all the evidence includes all
legitimately drawn inferences therefrom. The Court is to make no distinction between direct and circumstantial
evidence. Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236, 238 (Del. 2005). The State is not required to disprove every possible innocent
explanation in circumstantial evidence cases. Hoey v. State, 689 A.2d 1177, 1181 (Del. 1997).
4
doubt, then the evidence is sufficient.10 In considering the motion, the Court must
view all evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution.11
II. Analysis
A finding of Murder in the Second Degree requires the jury to
unanimously conclude the defendant recklessly took the life of another under
circumstances manifesting a “cruel, wicked, and depraved indifference to human
life.”12 Upon careful review, the Court finds the State submitted sufficient evidence
from which the jury could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Ford’s
actions on October 8, 2020 fit within this definition. Thus, for the reasons that
follow, the Court will sustain the verdict.
i. Mr. Ford’s Mens Rea
As mentioned above, the jury’s deliberations probably centered on the
question of whether Mr. Ford’s conduct: (1) satisfied the mens rea for Murder in the
Second Degree, or (2) was merely reckless. At trial, the State focused its case on
10
Winningham v. State, 2023 WL 2843773, at *1 (Del. Apr. 10, 2023); see also Monroe v. State, 652 A.2d 560, 563
(Del. 1995) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Monroe builds upon the United States Supreme Court’s
holding in Jackson v. Virginia:
This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact to fairly resolve conflicts
in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to
ultimate facts. Once a defendant has been found guilty of the crime charged, the factfinder’s role
as weigher of the evidence is preserved through a legal conclusion that upon judicial review, all of
the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The criterion, thus,
impinges upon “jury” discretion only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection
of due process of law.
443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), reh’g denied, 44 U.S. 890 (1979).
11
See Vouras, 452 A.2d at 1169.
12
11 Del. C. § 635.
5
the “inferred” theory of intent, citing the Delaware Supreme Court’s holding in
Plass v. State13 for the proposition that:
[T]he jury must be permitted, among other evidentiary
alternatives, to infer [] the defendant intended the natural and
probable consequences of his [actions]. If, on a given set of
facts, such an inference is a conclusion that could be reached
by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence is sufficient
[to convict].”14
And both parties relied heavily upon the Delaware Supreme Court’s holding in
McKinley v. State:15
To elevate Manslaughter to Murder in the Second Degree, the
State must prove not only that the defendant acted recklessly
as defined by 11 Del. C. 231(e), but must also prove [] the
defendant voluntarily and willfully did so under circumstances
which demonstrate his conscious and blatant disregard for the
rights and safety of others to such a degree that death or serious
injury would likely result. To do so, the State’s evidence
should include all the surrounding circumstances [of the
defendant’s conduct], including, but not limited to, the
defendant’s words, the degree of risk inherent in the
defendant’s activity, and whether he was aware of, and
blatantly disregarded, a known and unjustifiable risk of
death.16
In other words, the State reconciled Platt and McKinley to mean the jury may infer
Mr. Ford “voluntarily and willfully” killed Mr. Milton, so long as it found the
collision to be a “natural and probable consequence” of Mr. Ford’s erratic driving.
It is likely the jury so inferred. The Court is satisfied it had sufficient evidence to
do so.
13
457 A.2d 362 (Del. 1983).
14
Id. at 365; see also 11 Del. C. §§ 306, 307.
15
945 A.2d 1158 (Del. 2008).
16
Id. at 1163-64 (emphasis added).
6
For one, Mr. Ford was not simply driving too fast as he inadvertently
failed to heed to a red light. Instead, for over a mile, Mr. Ford intentionally traveled
in a sustained pattern of dangerous and deadly driving behavior. At 91 to 96 miles
per hour, Mr. Ford did not merely exceed posted safety speed limits;17 rather, he
drove through a business district on a busy afternoon in a manner that all but ensured
a tragic outcome. And for at least one-third of a mile before the intersection, every
other motorist traveling on U.S. 40 with Mr. Ford had the ability to be forewarned
of, see, and ultimately yield to the red light that Mr. Ford drove through.18
At trial, Corporal Breen testified that the gouge mark directionality of the
Saab’s tires indicated Mr. Ford was moving back into a lane of travel at the moment
of impact with Mr. Milton. In doing so, Mr. Ford did not account for Mr. Milton’s
vehicle on approach. Thus, it is difficult to find that Mr. Ford drove off the roadway
at the red light with the full intention of immediately re-establishing his lane after
passing the vehicles in his way.
The Court also notes the distinction between the actions of Mr. Ford and
Mr. Fischer, the driver of the silver Camaro. Eyewitness testimony indicated Mr.
Fischer: (1) drove in exactly the same dangerous manner as Mr. Ford leading to the
intersection of U.S. 40 and LaGrange Parkway; (2) passed Ms. Grier’s DART bus
at a similar speed; (3) encountered the same cars stopped at the red light on U.S. 40
17
See 21 Del. C. § 4169(b) (safe maximum limit for reasonable or prudent speeds).
18
When Mr. Ford chose to speed, he simultaneously accepted the consequences of his actions. Specifically, Mr.
Ford’s driving meant: (i) he would have a faster closing distance time on other objects on the road; (ii) he would need
to brake from a longer distance than other vehicles; and (iii) his elevated speed reduced the availability of collision
avoidance maneuvers.
7
and LaGrange Parkway; and (4) had the same amount of time to react to the danger.
But, instead of driving around the vehicles at the red light, Mr. Fischer stopped his
vehicle at the thru-lane without incident.
ii. Mr. Ford’s Post-Accident Conduct
As another avenue, Mr. Ford claims his post-accident conduct reveals his
pre-accident state of mind. Mr. Ford testified at trial that he: (1) called his mother
to say he was in a bad crash and cried on the call;19 (2) asked about the condition of
the other driver at the hospital; (3) cried, again, when Corporal Breen informed him
of Mr. Milton’s death; (4) completely cooperated with police and waived Miranda;
(5) implicated himself in the crime of smoking marijuana without a marijuana card;
and (6) consented to a blood draw, despite admittedly smoking CBD earlier in the
day.
In other words, Mr. Ford is apparently arguing his post-collision behavior
negates the necessary mens rea required to sustain a verdict for Murder in the
Second Degree. It does not. By testifying, Mr. Ford allowed the jury to assess his
credibility.20 And, having heard both sides, the jury unanimously agreed Mr. Ford
recklessly caused Mr. Milton’s death under circumstances constituting a cruel,
wicked, and depraved indifference to human life. As a matter of law, the Court
19
At trial, multiple eyewitnesses who spoke with, or directly observed, Mr. Ford after the collision stated he did not
cry at the scene.
20
See Smith v. State, 913 A.2d 1197, 1254-55 (Del. 2006). In assessing witness testimony, the jury is permitted to
consider “the motives actuating the witness, the fact, if it is a fact, that the testimony has been contradicted, the
witness’s bias, or prejudice, or interest in the outcome of this litigation, the manner and demeanor of the witness while
on the witness stand, and the apparent truthfulness of the testimony, and any and all other facts and circumstances
shown by the evidence which affect the credibility of the testimony….”
8
cannot say the jury’s assessment of all the evidence, including Mr. Ford’s story, was
wrong.
iii. The McKinley Argument
Third, Mr. Ford attempts to distinguish the circumstances of his case from
the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in McKinley.21
In McKinley, the defendant led police on a high-speed car chase before
running a red light and striking an innocent driver’s car.22 The force of the collision
caused the victim’s car to explode, killing the driver.23 Affirming the jury’s
conviction of Murder in the Second Degree, McKinley remarked the defendant:
[W]as aware of, and blatantly disregarded, a known and
unjustifiable risk of death to others by his persistent pattern of
egregious conduct in trying to avoid apprehension by operating
a motor vehicle at an outrageously dangerous rate of speed
without any regard for multiple stop signs and red lights.24
If this description of “outrageously dangerous” driving sounds familiar to the reader,
that is because Mr. Ford, also, engaged in appalling conduct when he drag raced
through traffic on a busy road before killing Mr. Milton. Nevertheless, Mr. Ford
attempts to differentiate his circumstances from McKinley on the grounds that he,
unlike the defendant in McKinley, did not display behavior that constituted a
“conscious and blatant disregard” for the safety of others.25
21
945 A.2d 1158.
22
See id. at 1159-1160.
23
Police in McKinley estimated the defendant drove in excess of 100 miles per hour at the time of the collision.
24
McKinley, 945 A.2d at 1165-66 (emphasis added).
25
Mr. Ford, specifically, argues he attempted to use his brakes before colliding with Mr. Milton. This point was
heavily disputed by the State at trial, and Mr. Ford’s assertions regarding the Saab’s brakes do not undercut the State’s
evidence. That is so, regardless of whether: (i) the brakes worked and Mr. Ford chose not to use them; (ii) Mr. Ford
attempted to use them (despite all evidence to the contrary) and they failed; or (iii) the brake failure was the result of
9
The Court disagrees. As noted above, at least three witnesses testified
Mr. Ford drove erratically. And to the extent Mr. Ford argues he did not drive
perilously because he attempted to brake before striking Mr. Milton, this was
properly rejected by the jury. Although there was conflicting testimony, the Court
must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State. 26 Based on this
evidence, rather than unsubstantiated conjecture, the jury’s verdict must be
sustained.27
b. The Motion for a New Trial
I. Standard of Review
Superior Court Criminal Rule 33 regulates Motions for a New Trial.28
Pursuant to Rule 33, the Court may grant a new trial if the interests of justice require
it to do so. A new trial is warranted “only if the error complained of resulted in
actual prejudice, or so infringed upon the defendant’s fundamental right to a fair
trial as to raise a presumption of prejudice.”29
II. Analysis
Mr. Ford makes two arguments in support of his Motion for a New Trial.
For the reasons stated below, both claims are rejected.
a known pre-existing and foreseeable problem Mr. Ford chose to ignore and exacerbate by driving erratically. The
jury was free to factor in Mr. Ford’s story of his brakes into its assessment of his mens rea.
26
See Winningham, 2023 WL 2843773, at *1; Vouras, 452 A.2d at 1169.
27
Through counsel, Mr. Ford points the Court to a number of out-of-state cases to support the proposition that his
conduct did not constitute Murder in the Second Degree. The Court is unpersuaded that these cases justify overturning
the jury’s decision. McKinley is the Delaware case that most closely resembles the facts of Mr. Ford’s case. And, as
demonstrated, the comparison of McKinley and Mr. Ford’s case shows the jury’s finding should not be disturbed.
28
See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 33. Under the rule, motions for a new trial must be made within seven days after a guilty
verdict or within such further time as the Court may fix during the seven-day period.
29
See generally Waters v. State, 242 A.2d 778 (Del. 2020); see also State v. Milner, 2023 WL 19080 (Del. Super. Jan.
3, 2023); State v. Ryle, 2015 WL 5004903, at *1 (Del. Super. Aug. 14, 2015).
10
i. The Sufficiency of the Evidence
First, Mr. Ford attempts to re-litigate the sufficiency of evidence claim
presented in his motion for judgment of acquittal. But, as demonstrated above, the
State presented ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict.
That is because Mr. Ford’s convictions do not turn on the sufficiency of
the evidence, but rather on what the jury made of it. And if the Court were obliged
to weigh the evidence on its own, it would find the scale comes down heavily in
favor of the jury’s verdict.
While there were two sides to the story, the jury had more than enough
evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ford committed Murder
in the Second Degree. The interests of justice, therefore, do not support a new trial.
The verdict is just and it will stand.
ii. The “Just Plain Wrong” Argument
Mr. Ford’s second argument is, in essence, a complaint that Mr. Fischer
was not charged for his role in the drag race. According to Mr. Ford, Mr. Fischer’s
comparative lack of accountability is “just plain wrong” and mandates a new trial
under Rule 33. This line of reasoning is meritless for several reasons.
First, under Rule 33, this contention requires an accompanying accusation
of prosecutorial misconduct.30 Mr. Ford has failed to argue, much less argue
convincingly, that the State undertook his prosecution in bad faith.
30
See Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 62 (Del. 1988); see also Wayte v. U.S., 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985). The Court
presumes Mr. Ford alleges his prosecution was “just plain wrong” because it was not undertaken in good faith and in
a nondiscriminatory manner.
11
Second, so long as the State has probable cause to believe the accused
committed an offense defined by statute, the decision of whether to prosecute rests
entirely within the province of the prosecutor.31 And even if Mr. Fischer’s conduct
may have exposed himself to criminal liability, the actions of “one participant in a
crime [do] not automatically negate another participant’s involvement.”32 So, the
State’s choice to prosecute Mr. Ford and not Mr. Fischer was free from error.
Lastly, Mr. Fischer and Mr. Ford behaved differently on October 8, 2020.
To be sure, both drag raced through heavy traffic in a business district. But when
they encountered the same red light, Mr. Fischer stopped his vehicle. Mr. Ford did
not.
Thus, Mr. Ford’s “just plain wrong” argument is, in itself, just plain
wrong.
c. The Jury Instruction Challenge
Unique circumstances bring Mr. Ford’s final argument before the Court.
Months after filing the motions discussed supra, Mr. Ford then filed a separate
“Additional Argument, on Behalf of the Defendant, Challenging the Correctness of
the Instruction on the Charge of Murder in the Second Degree” on January 23, 2023
(the “Jury Instruction Motion”), accompanied by a “Memorandum of Law in
Support of a Plain Error Analysis Vis-à-vis the Jury Instruction Provided the Jury
[sic] on the Offense of Murder in the Second Degree” (the “Jury Instruction
31
Panuski v. State, 41 A.3d 416, 422 (Del. 2012) (internal citations omitted).
32
See Neal v. State, 80 A.3d 935, 951 (Del. 2013).
12
Memorandum”).33 While such filings are unusual, the Court afforded them
preliminary review and directed the State to respond. Now having considered the
parties’ positions, the Court will deny the additional argument for the reasons that
follow.
I. Standard of Review
i. Timeliness
To begin, the Court notes Mr. Ford’s additional motion is procedurally
defaulted as untimely. The motion was not filed within the assigned time set forth
in Superior Court Criminal Rules 2934 and 33.35 These time limits are jurisdictional,
and Superior Court Criminal Rule 45(b) strictly prohibits enlargement of time for
Rule 29 and 33 motions.36 To allow post-trial objections to jury instructions under
Rule 29 would “render superfluous Rule 30’s timing requirements” and, ultimately,
undermine the purpose of the rule. But, procedural bars notwithstanding, the Court
will explain why his motion fails substantively, as well.
ii. The Plain Error Standard
As stated in Superior Court Criminal Rule 30:
. . . No party may assign as error any portion of the [jury]
charge or omission therefrom unless that party objects thereto
before or at a time set by the court immediately after the jury
retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to
which that party objects and the grounds of the objection.37
33
D.I. 67; D.I. 69.
34
Governing motions for Judgment of Acquittal.
35
Governing motions for New Trial not based on newly discovered evidence.
36
See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 45(b); see also State v. Bowie, 2022 WL 4004005, at *2 (Del. Super. Sept. 1, 2022);
Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 151 (Del. 1996).
37
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 30 (emphasis added).
13
Pursuant to the Rule, a defendant’s failure to object constitutes a waiver of his right
to raise the issue on appeal.38 So, even assuming that Mr. Ford’s claim was timely,
which it is not, the Court’s instructions could be reviewed, at most, only for plain
error.39
Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be
so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity
of the trial process40 and “affect[] the outcome of the trial.”41 Plain error is limited
to material defects which are apparent on the face of the record.42 These defects
must be “basic, serious, and fundamental in their character, and [] clearly deprive
an accused of a substantial right, or [] clearly show manifest injustice.”43
It is settled that when this Court reviews jury instructions for plain error,
“a defendant is not entitled to a particular instruction, but [] does have the
unqualified right to a correct statement of the substance of the law.”44 Plain error
reversal is thus appropriate “only if [the complained of] deficiency undermined the
ability of the jury to intelligently perform its duty in returning a verdict.” 45 The
Court will review the jury instructions as a whole,46 and only grant the defendant’s
38
State v. Perkins, 2005 WL 3007807, at *3 (Del. Super. Nov. 9, 2005) (citing Goddard v. State, 382 A.2d 238, 242
(Del. 1977).
39
See id. (Noting that, unless the error is plain within the technical meaning of the term, this Court is not to consider
a jury instruction issue the defendant failed to raise below).
40
Lowther v. State, 104 A.3d 840, 845 (Del. 2014).
41
Hastings, 2023 WL 150456, at *3.
42
Id.43
Id.44
Id.45
Id.46
Hankins v. State, 976 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 2009).
14
requested relief if it finds the instructions were not reasonably informative when
judged by common practices and standards of verbal communication.47
II. Analysis
i. The Plain Language
As discussed above, a person is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree
pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 635(1) when:
The person recklessly causes the death of another person under
circumstances which manifest a cruel, wicked, and depraved
indifference to human life. . . .48
The Court accordingly charged the statutory offense in Mr. Ford’s trial as:
(1) Defendant caused a person’s death;
(2) Defendant acted recklessly in causing death; and
(3) Defendant manifested a cruel, wicked, and depraved
indifference to human life.49
In keeping with State v. Waters, the Court’s instructions included both the statutory
definitions relevant to the offense and the non-statutory meanings, modeled after
the Superior Court’s pattern jury instructions, for the words “cruel,” “wicked,” and
“depraved.”50
The Court also addressed McKinley during the jury instruction drafting
process, and included the following language from McKinley in the instructions:
In order to prove Murder in the Second Degree, the State must
prove that Defendant voluntarily and willfully acted recklessly
under circumstances which demonstrate his conscious and
47
See id.
48
11 Del. C. § 635; see 11 Del. C. § 232 (defining elements of offense).
49
Jury Instr. at 13.
50
Id. at 15.
15
blatant disregard for the rights and safety of others to such a
degree that death [] would likely result.51
Then, because two lesser-included offenses were presented, the Court charged a
“Supplemental Instruction on Degrees of Homicide”:
. . . The following comments are offered to supplement those
instructions and perhaps explain the differences in a more
understandable way. The issue that differentiates each of the
charges and defenses is the Defendant’s state of mind at the
time of the offense.
Murder Second Degree involves a finding that the Defendant
recklessly caused the death under circumstances manifesting a
cruel, wicked, and depraved indifference to human life.
Manslaughter involves a finding that the Defendant recklessly
caused the death but does not require a finding that the
Defendant manifested a cruel, wicked, and depraved
indifference to human life . . . .52
Finally, the Court recited the following Consideration of Evidence instruction:
If, after considering all of the evidence relating [to] any of the
to the [sic] offenses, you find that the State has established
beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant acted in such a
manner to satisfy the elements of that offense as I have just
stated, at or about the date and place stated in the charge, you
should find the Defendant guilty of that offense . . . .53
The words of Murder in the Second Degree have been instructed to innumerable
juries in this State over the years.54 They were provided in this case, and have been
affirmed time and time again by the Supreme Court.55 Accordingly, the Court is
51
Id. at 13.
52
Id. at 2 (“. . . you should listen to and consider all of these instructions together in reaching your verdict.” (emphasis
added)).
53
Id. at 38.
54
Waters, 443 A.2d at 505.
55
See Waters, 443 A.2d at 503 n.5 (“1. The defendant caused the death of [another person] . . . . 1. The defendant
acted recklessly . . . . 3. The defendant’s recklessness was such as to manifest a cruel, wicked, and depraved
16
satisfied the charge in this case, in toto, comported with Delaware caselaw and
statute.
ii. Mr. Ford’s Additional Language
Nevertheless, Mr. Ford now contends it was plain error for the Court to
omit an additional fourth component of Murder in the Second Degree. According
to Mr. Ford, the Court should have included an instruction on the overt “temporal
connection between the incident (collision)” and the “cruel, wicked, and depraved
indifference to human life” state of mind element.56
At the outset, the Court notes the Jury Instruction Motion and Jury
Instruction Memorandum are inconsistent as to what elements are necessary to
support Mr. Ford’s plain error argument.
In the Jury Instruction Motion, Mr. Ford submits the elements for Murder
in the Second Degree should have included:
(1) Causing the death of another person; and
(2) Doing so while acting with a reckless state of mind; and
indifference to human life.”); see also Weber v. State, 457 A.2d 674, 687-88 (Del. 1983) (“the difference between
second degree murder and manslaughter hangs on the statutory language here in question [i.e. element of “cruel,
wicked, and depraved indifference to human life”].”); Lilly v. State, 649 A.2d 1055, 1063 (Del. 1994) (“the jury’s
verdict reflects its factual determination that Lilly perceived the risk of death and acted with a reckless, depraved
indifference to that risk.”); Moorhead v. State, 638 A.2d 52, 54-58 (Del. 1994) (“The nature of the risk threatened by
Moorhead’s conduct bore directly on whether he acted ‘recklessly,’ which is a statutory element of murder in the
second degree.”); Chambers v. State, 1995 WL 24887, at *1 (Del. Jan. 13, 1995) (Finding Murder in the Second
Degree elements to be “First, that [the defendant] caused the death of [another person] . . . Second, the state must
prove [the defendant] acted recklessly. . . . Third, in addition to the reckless conduct, the State must prove that the
recklessness was of a type such as to manifest a cruel, wicked, and depraved indifference to human life.”); Berry v.
State, 2002 WL 1484510, at *3 (Del. Jul. 8, 2002) (Listing the elements of Murder in the Second Degree as: “One,
defendant caused [another person]’s death . . . And two, defendant acted recklessly . . . And three, defendant’s
recklessness manifested a cruel, wicked, and depraved indifference to human life.”); Deshields v. State, 879 A.2d 591,
593-94 (Del. 2005) (“Although ‘reckless causation’ is an element of both felony and second degree murder, to prove
second degree murder, the State must show an additional element not included in the definition of felony murder,
namely, that the defendant’s actions indicated a ‘cruel, wicked, and depraved indifference for human life.”); McKinley,
945 A.2d at 1161 (“The words ‘cruel, wicked, and depraved indifference to human life[]’ are intended to define a
particular state of mind . . . “ that distinguishes Murder in the Second Degree from the lesser crime of Manslaughter.)
56
Def. Jury Instr. Mot. at 3.
17
(3) Under circumstances which manifest a cruel, wicked, and
depraved indifference to human life, and the
aforementioned state of mind must have been [the]
defendant’s state of mind when (at the time of) the reckless
causation of the death of another.57
But in his Jury Instruction Memorandum, Mr. Ford writes:
Rather than pontificate further by pointing out the
shortcomings of the pattern, relied upon by the Court and
counsel, Defense Counsel simply proposes a new model, and
the distinction between the proposal and what was rendered, as
the saying goes, “speaks for itself[”]:
In order to find the defendant guilty of Murder in the Second
Degree, you must find that the State has proven the existence
of each of the following four (4) elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:
(1) The defendant drove his motor vehicle in a reckless manner in
which term I will explain momentarily; and
(2) The nature of the defendant’s reckless driving was a
manifestation of defendant’s cruel and wicked and depraved
indifference to human life; and
(3) The recklessness and depraved indifference described
occurred at or near the time of the collision so as to represent
a criminal act; and
(4) As a result of defendant’s recklessness and depraved
indifference to human life, he caused the death of the victim in
this case.58
Which proposed instruction Mr. Ford intended the Court to consider is of no
consequence, however, as both are inaccurate recitations of the law.
At face value, Mr. Ford’s novel argument conflicts with Delaware
statutory law. That is because criminal offenses are delineated by their statutory
elements,59 and Mr. Ford’s four averred elements either exceed, or misinterpret, the
57
Id. at 2 (emphasis added to highlight additions).
58
Def. Mem. Jury Instr. at 22-23 (emphasis added to highlight additions).
59
11 Del. C. § 635; see 11 Del. C. § 232 (definition related to elements of offense).
18
law. For example, Delaware’s Murder in the Second Degree statute mentions
neither a motor vehicle or collision, and does not require the driving itself to be
reckless.60 The definition of “recklessly” as a state of mind is distinguishable from
“reckless driving,” which is a separate offense,61 and encompasses facts and
circumstances beyond the physical act of driving. Further, the phrase “so as to
represent a criminal act” is prohibitively vague. To include it in the jury instructions
would run contrary to the purpose of instructing juries with objective and defined
elements.
As a whole, the instructions represented a correct statement of the law.62
The Court is satisfied that the jury was able to intelligently use them in reaching its
verdict.
iii. Juror Confusion
Next, Mr. Ford submits the instructions caused juror confusion because
they “overlooked language which would clearly explicate the duty of the jury to
recognize joinder of mind and body in order that Ford be held accountable for
Murder in the Second Degree.”63 In his Jury Instruction Memorandum, Mr. Ford
explains:
As presented to the jury, there was no necessary connection
between recklessness as a causative factor and/or the cruelty
toward humankind as a causative factor. As written, and read,
it could be one of them, it could be both of them, [or] it could
60
11 Del. C. § 635.
61
See 21 Del. C. § 4175.
62
See Hastings, 2023 WL 150456, at *3.
63
Def. Jury Instr. Mem. at 22.
19
be none of them in terms of causation except causing the
death.64
This position is incorrect for a number of reasons.
First, the concept of “joinder of mind and body” is inherent to the
elements of the offense as instructed. The first element of Murder in the Second
Degree – Mr. Ford causing Mr. Milton’s death – is the actus reus.65 The second and
third elements – Mr. Ford acting recklessly in causing death and manifesting a cruel,
wicked, and depraved indifference to human life – define the requisite enhanced
mens rea.66
Second, the instruction mandated the State to prove all three elements and
the instruction’s inclusion reiterated the same concept.67
Third, the three elements had a conjunctive “and” between the second and
third elements, thereby reinforcing that all elements must be proven.68
Fourth, the included McKinley language elaborated that the State must
prove the “[d]efendant voluntarily and willfully acted recklessly under
circumstances which demonstrate his conscious and blatant disregard for the rights
and safety of others to such a degree that death [] would likely result.”69
Fifth, the Court instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of
Manslaughter. As such, the jury was informed that, under appropriate
64
Id. at 23.
65
See generally 11 Del. C. §§ 242 (requirements for criminal liability), 243 (voluntary act).
66
See generally 11 Del. C. §§ 231 (definitions related to state of mind), 251-252, 263, 635.
67
Jury Instr. at 13.
68
Id.
69
Id.
20
circumstances, it could consider a lesser charge without the cruel, wicked, and
depraved element.70 In providing the jury with a less dramatic alternative than the
sharp choice between conviction of the offense charged and acquittal, the Court
accorded Mr. Ford the full benefit of the reasonable doubt standard. And, still, the
jury found him guilty of Murder in the Second Degree.
Sixth, though not required or necessary, the Court included a
Supplemental Instruction on Degrees of Homicide.71 As the name suggests, this
instruction explained the differences between the associated state of mind at the
time of the offense for each crime. The supplement reinforced, again, that Murder
in the Second Degree “involves a finding that the defendant recklessly caused the
death under circumstances manifesting a cruel, wicked, and depraved indifference
to human life,” whereas Manslaughter involved reckless causation of death but
“[did] not require a finding that the Defendant manifested a cruel, wicked, and
depraved indifference to human life.”72 The jury’s awareness of the two charges,
and its ability to juxtapose the elements of each, further demonstrates that it
understood how the “cruel, wicked, and depraved” element existed in conjunction
with, and as an enhancement to, the reckless mens rea element when it found Mr.
Ford guilty of Murder in the Second Degree.
Last but not least, the Court is satisfied the jury found all three elements
to have existed at the time of the offense. Factually, the collision occurred at the
70
Id. at 14.
71
Id. at 20.
72
Id.
21
apex of Mr. Ford’s recklessness, as documented by his prior 1.2 miles of
uninterrupted and dangerous driving. The degree of his recklessness only increased
as he moved towards the location of the collision. The jury found that, at some point
in those 1.2 miles, Mr. Ford’s recklessness manifested a “cruel, wicked, and
depraved indifference to human life.” Once the State had proven that element,
where, geographically, the element arose on Mr. Ford’s pre-collision joyride has no
bearing on the matter; the element remained continuously in effect thereafter. So,
because the element was never interrupted, extinguished, or otherwise undone, it
also must have existed “at the time of the offense.”
iv. “At the Time of the Offense” Mens Rea
Similar to the above argument, Mr. Ford next attempts to evolve his
hyper-segmented view of the evidence into an unsupported “temporal connection”
mens rea error in the instructions.73 Although his contention begins with the
undisputed proposition that Murder in the Second Degree requires both an actus
reus and mens rea “at the time of” the offense, Mr. Ford then parses the “at the time
of” concept and culls from it a theory that is inconsistent with what a jury may
consider in assessing a defendant’s state of mind.
In other words, Mr. Ford isolates the totality of the factual circumstances
into segments, analyzes the segments in a vacuum without context, and narrows his
analysis to only the moment of the collision itself.74 And, according to Mr. Ford,
73
Def. Jury Instr. Mem. at 9.
74
Id. at 6-7, 23-24.
22
the Court’s failure to join him in doing so constitutes plain error as “there was
nothing in the instruction as given that prevented the jury from commingling earlier
descriptions with critical events occurring as the Ford vehicle entered the
intersection.”75
While Mr. Ford is correct that mens rea is limited to its existence at the
time of the offense, his assertion that the scope of facts and circumstances used to
determine mens rea must also be similarly restricted runs contrary to Delaware law.
So, consistent with 11 Del. C. § 307, the Court read the jury the following “State of
Mind” instruction:
An element of the criminal offense[s] I have just defined for
you deals with the state of mind of the defendant. It is, of
course, difficult to know what is going on in another person’s
mind. Therefore, you are permitted to draw an inference, or in
other words, to reach a conclusion, about a Defendant’s state
of mind from the facts and circumstances. In reaching this
conclusion, you may consider whether a reasonable person
acting in the Defendant’s circumstances would have had, or
would not have had, the required recklessness, criminal
negligence state of mind, knowledge, or belief. Likewise,
every person is inferred to intend the natural and probable
consequences of his act. You should, however, keep in mind
at all times that it is the Defendant’s state of mind which is at
issue. In order to convict the Defendant of an offense, you are
required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant,
in fact, had the recklessness, criminal negligence state of mind,
knowledge, or belief required for a finding of guilt.76
A final thing worth mentioning is that Mr. Ford testified. In doing so, he provided
the jury with additional insight into his state of mind and circumstances before, and
75
Id. at 24.
76
Jury Instr. at 21 (emphasis added) (State of Mind).
23
at the time of, the collision. The Court, in turn, instructed the jury on “Direct and
Circumstantial Evidence”77 and “Credibility of Witnesses and Conflicts in
Testimony,”78 thereby subjecting Mr. Ford’s testimony to the same credibility
assessment as that of any other witness.79
Actus reus and mens rea, to be sure, are independent concepts, and only
constitute a crime under Delaware law when they occur together. But it goes
without citation that the mens rea can begin (and exist) before the actus reus.
Delaware law requires proof of simultaneous occurrence, but not simultaneous
creation. Thus, this argument is rejected.
v. Mr. Ford’s Caselaw
Mr. Ford’s final contention is nothing more than a last-ditch argument
that Delaware caselaw supports his novel jury instruction theory. The Court reviews
each case, and explains why he is incorrect, below.
1. Waters v. State
In Waters, the sole error the Delaware Supreme Court found in the trial
court’s jury instructions was the failure to define the words “cruel, wicked, and
depraved indifference to human life” with their commonly accepted meanings.80
But, as explained above, the Court explicitly heeded Waters’ holding and did so
here. As such, this challenge is meritless.
77
Id. at 33.
78
Id. at 35-36.
79
See Smith v. State, 913 A.2d 1197, 1254-55 (Del. 2006).
80
Waters, 443 A.2d at 506.
24
2. Berry v. State
In Berry v. State, a jury convicted the defendant of the lesser included
charge of Manslaughter. The facts and circumstances in Berry included
unwitnessed conduct and conflicting testimony as to causation of the victim’s
injuries in different locations (e.g., at the defendant’s home or later in his vehicle);81
or, as Mr. Ford understands Berry:
Phrased differently, the law requires the jury to ignore any
conduct that was depraved, et cetera, as an antecedent to the
actual conduct under examination and which is a critical
distinction.82
This Berry interpretation defies both logic and the law. For one, as a threshold
matter, the circumstances of Mr. Ford’s case are wholly inapposite to Berry.
Multiple eyewitnesses testified as to Mr. Ford’s treacherous driving, and the cause
of Mr. Milton’s death was uncontroverted. Further, Berry does not hold that a jury
must ignore antecedent conduct; instead, it encourages a “fair reading of the entire
jury charge,”83 which, in this case, included “State of Mind” and “Direct and
Circumstantial Evidence” instructions to provide guidance on determining mens
rea.
81
Berry, 2002 WL 1484510, at *6.
82
Def. Jury Instr. Mem. at 6.
83
Berry, 2002 WL 1484510, at *6.
25
3. Bullock v. State
In Bullock v. State,84 the Delaware Supreme Court analyzed 11 Del. C. §
263, which provides limitations to establishing the “but for” causation element of
an offense within a foreseeability of the risk analysis.85 All told, the Bullock
defendant was charged with Manslaughter after he drove through an intersection at
nearly thirty miles per hour over the speed limit, and, while impaired by alcohol,
struck another vehicle and killed its driver.86 The Bullock defendant had the right
of way at the time via a yellow light and the victim had turned into the intersection
against a solid red arrow. Given the complexity of Bullock’s causation analysis, the
Delaware Supreme Court found this Court’s failure to instruct on the § 263
modification to the strict application of the “but-for” test to be reversible error.87
Without the § 263 charge, Bullock found the instructions “did not speak to the need
to weigh [the defendant]’s actual awareness of the risk against the improbable
actions of another actor, which unarguably contributed to the result.”88
Here, however, there is no evidence that Mr. Milton contributed to, or
created a risk of, the fatal collision. In fact, it is undisputed that Mr. Ford was the
sole cause of the collision that took Mr. Milton’s life. Thus, Bullock does not create
an instruction requirement relevant to Mr. Ford.
84
775 A.2d 1043 (Del. 2001)
85
11 Del. C. § 263.
86
Bullock, 775 A.2d at 1050.
87
Id. at 1054.
88
Id. at 1050.
26
4. Cannon v. State
In Cannon v. State,89 a juvenile defendant was charged with criminally
negligent homicide following a brief physical confrontation in a school bathroom.
The victim, an otherwise healthy juvenile, died from an undiagnosed heart
condition, and not from any actual harm incurred in the fight. The Delaware
Supreme Court accordingly analyzed the facts and circumstances of the fight and
how the victim actually died in the context of criminal negligence and 11 Del. C. §
263.
After exploring the limitations of causation set forth in § 263 and the
issue of foreseeability where there is a far greater contrast between the actual and
probable result in a criminal negligence context, Cannon held that the victim’s death
from cardiac arrest was simply “too remote” from the hazards of the defendant’s
conduct and “too accidental in its occurrence” to transform the defendant’s actions
from a physical attack into criminally negligent homicide.90
With Cannon thusly framed, Mr. Ford submits:
Even the Court’s strongest statement – that “Death was clearly
a risk of [the defendant’s] conduct” – does not get us to
criminal negligence. That it is possible to say, in hindsight,
that death was clearly a risk of her conduct does not mean that
the risk would have been clear to someone in the defendant’s
position who was bound up in the moment.
...
That language, explicitly, presupposes that the mens rea is
inextricably linked to the time of the conduct causing the death
89
181 A.3d 615, 625-30 (Del. 2018).
90
Id. at 630.
27
not related to cognitive processes before the conduct, nor after
the conduct.91
In other words, this contention represents an attempt to re-engage the previously
discussed motion for judgment of acquittal. While Cannon addresses the
foreseeability of risk of death, it does not, unlike what Mr. Ford suggests, impose
blanket limitations on the facts and circumstances to be considered in determining
mens rea. Instead, the Cannon Court reviewed the facts and circumstances of the
school fight (and not just the heart attack itself) in assessing if the requisite mens
rea existed at the time of the offense.
5. Lilly v. State
In Lilly v. State,92 the defendant drove between 75 and 80 miles per hour
when he approached the curve of a concrete bridge before driving across a double-
yellow line and killing the driver of an oncoming vehicle. The defendant, who was
driving under the influence, had been seen drinking at a bar beforehand.
Nevertheless, he argued at trial that he could not have consciously disregarded a
substantial risk of death to the victim because he did not see she was there. 93 The
jury rejected this hyper-segmented approach to the facts and convicted the defendant
of Murder in the Second Degree, despite an available lesser included verdict option.
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on appeal.
91
Def. Jury Instr. Mem. at 8.
92
Lilly, 649 A.2d 1055.
93
Id. at 1062-63.
28
6. McKinley v. State
All roads lead back to McKinley. Because the Court has gone to great
lengths to explain why Mr. Ford’s case differs from McKinley, it will not entertain
this final argument, other than to say it exceeds the scope of Mr. Ford’s Jury
Instruction Motion.94 As McKinley observed:
. . . The State’s evidence should include all the surrounding
circumstances including but not limited to, the defendant’s
words, the degree of risk inherent in the defendant’s activity,
and whether he was aware of and blatantly disregarded a
known and unjustifiable risk of death.95
“The unjustifiable risk of death created by [the defendant]’s reckless actions
constituted a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of conduct, in light of all
the surrounding circumstances, including the purposes of his activity.”96 Mr. Ford’s
Motions and Additional Arguments are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr.
Francis J. Jones, Jr., Judge
Original to Prothonotary (Criminal Division)
94
Jury. Instr. Mem. at 10-14.
95
McKinley, 945 A.2d at 1164 (emphasis added).
96
Id. at 1166.
29