State v. Hall

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: January 16, 2024
• Docket: 88004234DI
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) ID No. 88004234DI ) GIBSON A. HALL ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Gibson Hall has filed his third motion under Rule 61 for postconviction relief

from his 1979 conviction for Murder First Degree and a weapons offense. Like the

previous two, this one will be denied.

1. A detailed history of this well-travelled case is not necessary for its

resolution. Hall was convicted of intentionally shooting his mother in the head, at

close range. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.1

2. His first Rule 61 motion, decided in 1988, complained about the jury

instructions, the charges, a typographical error and four claims of ineffective

1 Hall v. State, 431 A.2d 1258 (Del. 1981).

1 assistance of counsel.2 That motion was denied in its entirety, which denial was also

affirmed on appeal.3

3. His second Rule 61 motion, decided in 1998, raised newly discovered

evidence and, again, ineffective assistance of counsel. All of these claims were

discussed, and relief was denied.4 The Supreme Court affirmed on the basis of

Superior Court’s Opinion.5

4. In this, his third go around, he claims primarily that he was tried without

an indictment, warrant or other formal charging pleading. He claims this is “newly

discovered evidence,” and so the normal rules of preclusion should not apply.

5. There are several reasons why this argument is wrong, but the easiest

is the factual inaccuracy that he was not indicted. Docket number One in State v.

Hall is a copy of the “true bill” of indictment handed down by a New Castle County

grand jury on August 7, 1979. While attachment of the document itself is an

unnecessary appendage to this Order, as a courtesy, the Court will forward a copy of

the indictment to the Defendant along with this Order denying relief.

6. To the extent the defendant raises other issues concerning his initial

“commitment” and/or original warrant, they are not cognizable at this point.

2 State v. Hall, 1988 WL 90577 (Del. Super. Aug. 24, 1988). 3 Hall v. State, 560 A.2d 490 (Del. 1989). 4 State v. Hall, 2008 WL 22582998 (Del. Super. May 20, 1998). 5 Hall v. State, 966 A.2d 347 (Del. 1998). 2 Superior Court obtained jurisdiction when the Defendant was indicted. There is no

doubt but that he was properly tried, convicted and sentenced, all of which has been

reviewed in minute detail by numerous tribunals, all affirming the jury’s verdict.

The Court will not further countenance this, his (at least) third Rule 61 motion.

7. For all the reasons stated above, Hall’s Motion for Postconviction

Relief and Motion for Appointment of Counsel are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of January, 2024.

s/s Charles E. Butler Charles E. Butler, Resident Judge

cc: Prothonotary John W. Downs, Deputy Attorney General Gibson A. Hall (SBI# 0011052)