James v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware

James v. State

377 A.2d 15, 1977 Del. LEXIS 728

CourtSupreme Court of Delaware

DecidedAugust 17, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 377 A.2d 15 (James v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James v. State, 377 A.2d 15, 1977 Del. LEXIS 728 (Del. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendant was convicted of rape, in violation of 11 Del.C. § 763, and kidnapping, in violation of 11 Del.C. § 783. Each is a Class B felony for which a sentence of twenty years imprisonment was imposed. He appeals on the ground that the State failed to establish the situs of the crimes and thus did not prove venue and the jurisdiction of the Superior Court.

With exceptions not pertinent here, it is elemental and fundamental that the State must prove as part of the prosecution that the conduct constituting the crime occurred in Delaware. 11 Del.C. § 204(a)(1). State v. Sigh, Del.Gen.Sess. 8 W.W.Harr. 362, 192 A. 682, 684 (1937); State v. Curtin, Del.Gen.Sess., 5 Boyce 518, 95 A. 232, 234 (1914); Compare Smallwood v. State, Del.Supr., 266 A.2d 184 (1970). And the trial must be held in the county in which the crime was committed. Super.Ct.Cr.Rule 18; cf. In re Alexander, Del.Super., 3 Terry 461, 36 A.2d 361 (1944).

The State does not dispute either of these propositions but contends that it proved situs by inference from the direct testimony. We agree that situs may be *16 established by inference, Iozzi v. State, 224 Md. 42, 166 A.2d 257, 259 (1960). But to establish that inference the State, in its brief, makes only one point: It says that the Court should take judicial notice—

“to a fact, that a Delaware State Policeman would most likely investigate alleged criminal activity within the State of Delaware.”

And it seeks to put inference upon inference by contending that, for venue purposes, the Court should infer that a State Policeman assigned to Troop 4 at Georgetown would not go outside that Troop’s patrol jurisdiction, (apparently all of Sussex County) to investigate a crime.

Merely to state these contentions is to show how flimsy and inadequate they are as a foundation to support the indispensable proof of situs of these crimes. The proof is inadequate whether tested by the preponderance-of-the-evidenee rule or by proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. See the discussion in State v. Baldwin, Me.Supr., Jud.Ct. 305 A.2d 555 (1973). Manifestly, the State cannot prove that this defendant raped and kidnapped this victim in Sussex County, Delaware by showing where a State Policeman would investigate or would not investigate, or “would most likely” go to investigate criminal activity. It is regrettable that such careless prosecution of this serious case requires us to reverse the conviction for failure to make what should have been a threshold presentation by the State.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Defendant was convicted of rape, in violation of 11 Del.C. § 763, and kidnapping, in violation of 11 Del.C. § 783. Each is a Class B felony for which a sentence of twenty years imprisonment was imposed. He appeals on the ground that the State failed to establish the situs of the crimes and thus did not prove venue and the jurisdiction of the Superior Court.

With exceptions not pertinent here, it is elemental and fundamental that the State must prove as part of the prosecution that the conduct constituting the crime occurred in Delaware. 11 Del.C. § 204(a)(1). State v. Sigh, Del.Gen.Sess. 8 W.W.Harr. 362, 192 A. 682, 684 (1937); State v. Curtin, Del.Gen.Sess., 5 Boyce 518, 95 A. 232, 234 (1914); Compare Smallwood v. State, Del.Supr., 266 A.2d 184 (1970). And the trial must be held in the county in which the crime was committed. Super.Ct.Cr.Rule 18; cf. In re Alexander, Del.Super., 3 Terry 461, 36 A.2d 361 (1944).

The State does not dispute either of these propositions but contends that it proved situs by inference from the direct testimony. We agree that situs may be *16 established by inference, Iozzi v. State, 224 Md. 42, 166 A.2d 257, 259 (1960). But to establish that inference the State, in its brief, makes only one point: It says that the Court should take judicial notice—

“to a fact, that a Delaware State Policeman would most likely investigate alleged criminal activity within the State of Delaware.”

And it seeks to put inference upon inference by contending that, for venue purposes, the Court should infer that a State Policeman assigned to Troop 4 at Georgetown would not go outside that Troop’s patrol jurisdiction, (apparently all of Sussex County) to investigate a crime.

Merely to state these contentions is to show how flimsy and inadequate they are as a foundation to support the indispensable proof of situs of these crimes. The proof is inadequate whether tested by the preponderance-of-the-evidenee rule or by proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. See the discussion in State v. Baldwin, Me.Supr., Jud.Ct. 305 A.2d 555 (1973). Manifestly, the State cannot prove that this defendant raped and kidnapped this victim in Sussex County, Delaware by showing where a State Policeman would investigate or would not investigate, or “would most likely” go to investigate criminal activity. It is regrettable that such careless prosecution of this serious case requires us to reverse the conviction for failure to make what should have been a threshold presentation by the State.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 A.2d 15, 1977 Del. LEXIS 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-state-del-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack