Martin v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware

Martin v. State

195 A.3d 1198

CourtSupreme Court of Delaware

DecidedOctober 12, 2018

Docket30, 2018

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 195 A.3d 1198 (Martin 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

Martin v. State, 195 A.3d 1198 (Del. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Gary F. Traynor, Justice

This 12th day of October, 2018, after careful consideration of the parties' briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

1. The Superior Court's rulings rejecting appellant Darnell Martin's arguments that the detention of his vehicle violated 21 Del. C. § 701 and was thereafter extended by the detaining officers without the requisite level of suspicion should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in the Superior Court's bench rulings on December 21, 2017. 1

2. Martin's contention that the Superior Court "erred by failing to make a meaningful determination of relative witness credibility," 2 pointing to some purported inconsistencies in the arresting officer's testimony and the Court's statement that it was not prepared to find that the arresting officer had committed perjury, is without merit. We reject Martin's suggestion that the Superior Court accepted the officer's testimony and rejected his simply because he is not a police officer. Implicit in the Superior Court's credibility findings was its conclusion that the arresting officer testified credibly while Martin did not. That the Superior Court observed that a finding to the contrary would be tantamount to finding that the arresting officer had perjured himself does not change the essence of this credibility finding-a determination that is well within the province of the trial court to make.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

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

Gary F. Traynor, Justice

This 12th day of October, 2018, after careful consideration of the parties' briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

1. The Superior Court's rulings rejecting appellant Darnell Martin's arguments that the detention of his vehicle violated 21 Del. C. § 701 and was thereafter extended by the detaining officers without the requisite level of suspicion should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in the Superior Court's bench rulings on December 21, 2017. 1

2. Martin's contention that the Superior Court "erred by failing to make a meaningful determination of relative witness credibility," 2 pointing to some purported inconsistencies in the arresting officer's testimony and the Court's statement that it was not prepared to find that the arresting officer had committed perjury, is without merit. We reject Martin's suggestion that the Superior Court accepted the officer's testimony and rejected his simply because he is not a police officer. Implicit in the Superior Court's credibility findings was its conclusion that the arresting officer testified credibly while Martin did not. That the Superior Court observed that a finding to the contrary would be tantamount to finding that the arresting officer had perjured himself does not change the essence of this credibility finding-a determination that is well within the province of the trial court to make.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.3d 1198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-del-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack