State v. Johnson
This text of State v. Johnson (State v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) ID No. 2208005712A ) CAPICE A. JOHNSON, ) ) Defendant. )
ORDER
This 18th day of March 2026, the Court enters the following Order:
1. Before the Court are three pleadings filed by the Defendant in this
matter: Docket entry #45 is his pro se pleading entitled “Posttrial motion to compel
production of discovery and evidence.” 1 Docket entry #46 is a “Motion for new trial 0F
pursuant to Rule 33.” 2 Docket entry #47 is a copy of a letter to his trial counsel 1F
seeking discovery materials from counsel’s file pertinent to Defendant’s trial. 3 2F
2. Defendant was tried and convicted of crimes arising from a shooting.
The facts are detailed in the Supreme Court’s opinion affirming his conviction. 4 3F
Essentially, the Defendant drove up to the victim’s house on a dirt bike, opened fire
on a woman in the driveway, and drove off. The shooting was captured on a nearby
1 Def.’s Mot. to Compel Disc., Docket Item (hereinafter “D.I._”) 45. 2 Def’s Mot. for New Trial, D.I. 46. 3 Def’s Letter to Counsel, D.I. 47. 4 See Johnson v. State, 342 A.3d 1157 (Del. 2025). video camera that the jury watched. The State’s proof consisted of evidence that
Defendant was the man on the dirt bike.
3. Defendant was represented by private counsel at his trial. Defense
counsel received pretrial discovery pursuant to Rule 16 of the Delaware Rules of
Criminal Procedure. Some of the evidence tending to identify the Defendant was
the result of a search warrant executed at his residence and a vehicle associated with
the residence. The Defense sought to exclude that evidence by way of a pretrial
suppression motion. The motion was unsuccessful and was the subject of a written
opinion by the Superior Court. 5 4F
Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Rule 33
4. There are two possible bases upon which to seek a new trial under Rule
33. First, a motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence is timely
if it is filed within two years of final judgment. 6 To the extent Defendant claims 5F
newly discovered evidence, it would be considered a timely motion.
5. The second basis for seeking a new trial is a catch-all – any basis other
than newly discovered evidence – and such a motion “shall be made within 7 days
after verdict or finding of guilt.” 7 Since Defendant’s finding of guilt occurred in 6F
5 State v. Johnson, 2023 WL 4417544 (Del. Super. July 7, 2023). 6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 33. 7 Id.
2 October 2023, a motion under Rule 33 for a new trial based upon anything other than
newly discovered evidence is untimely and need not be considered further.
6. The problem is that Defendant makes no claim to any newly discovered
evidence. Indeed, his “motion to compel discovery and evidence” demonstrates that
he does not plead the existence of any newly discovered evidence: he says that if the
State gives over more evidence, maybe he’ll find something. Exactly what that
“something” might be, Defendant never says. Thus, the motion for a new trial based
upon newly discovered evidence fails because it does not allege the existence of
newly discovered evidence. To the extent the motion is based upon something other
than newly discovered evidence, it is time-barred. Because Defendant’s motion fails
under either prong of Rule 33, his motion for a new trial must be denied.
Motion to Compel Production of Discovery and Evidence
7. It is not entirely clear what the Defendant is arguing in this motion.
There were search warrants executed and cell site location information obtained
from the cellular companies, but it appears they were all turned over in discovery.
Indeed, the search warrants were subject to a full suppression hearing. The State has
responded to Defendant’s motion, asserting that it produced all that Defendant was
entitled to under Rule 16.
3 8. First, Defendant seeks copies of all search warrants used to extract
data from seized cell phones. Copies of the search warrants for two cell phones
are appended to the State’s answer to Defendant’s motion. 8 In addition, copies 7F
were provided to his counsel pretrial. 9 To the extent the motion seeks these 8F
warrants, the issue is moot.
9. Second, he seeks the “CSLI” from the cell phones above. A copy of the
cell site location information warrant was included in the State’s answer to his
motion and, like the phone warrants, a copy was provided to defense counsel
pretrial. 10 While not reproduced a second time, the record reflects that the State 9F
produced a zip drive containing “2 cell phone dumps” by way of a second discovery
letter to defense counsel dated January 4, 2023. 11 Defendant’s request for discovery 10F
is denied as duplicative.
10. Third, Defendant seeks “full extraction reports” which he calls “the
complete, unredacted forensic extraction reports for all seized phones, including raw
data, photos, text messages, videos, call logs, application logs and metadata.” 12 11F
Given the other errors in Defendant’s pleading, the Court cannot discern whether
8 State’s Resp., D.I. 49, Exs. A, B. 9 State’s Resp., D.I. 49, Ex. D, Items 7i, 7j. 10 State’s Resp., D.I. 49, Ex. D, Item 7k. 11 State’s Resp., D.I. 49, Ex. E, Item 7. 12 Def.’s Mot. to Compel Disc., D.I. 45.
4 these materials were included in what the State called a “cell phone dump” in its
prior discovery answer. Even if these materials were not included, that does not
mean the Defendant is now entitled to the materials if they exist. As the Supreme
Court has said, “[i]n postconviction proceedings, ‘good cause’ is a heavier burden
than the showing needed for pretrial discovery. Especially at the postconviction
stage, ‘petitioners are not entitled to go on a fishing expedition through the
government’s files in hopes of finding some damaging evidence.’” 13 Defendant has 12F
not demonstrated what the data will reveal that is of relevance to this litigation. His
motion is therefore denied for failure to show good cause for such discovery.
11. Finally, Defendant seeks “a detailed inventory and production” of all
evidence seized from the residence at 417 Cavalier Drive. Again, Defendant has
failed to demonstrate good cause entitling him to posttrial discovery. Defendant has
shown no cause whatsoever. Even if we were in a pretrial posture, he would have at
best an opportunity to inspect physical items seized; he would not be entitled to
production. 14 The State’s discovery letter mentions the inclusion of 68 photographs 13F
taken during the search of 417 Cavalier Drive. 15 At this point, it is unknown whether 14F
Defendant’s trial counsel took the opportunity to go to the police station to physically
13 Cabrera v. State, 173 A.2d 1012, 1033 (Del. 2017) (first citing Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1198 (Del. 1996); and then citing State v. Jackson, 2006 WL 1229684, at *2 (Del. Super. May 3, 2006)). 14 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 16(a)(1)(C). 15 State’s Resp., D.I. 49, Ex. D.
5 examine the materials seized, but it also does not matter. In his motion, Defendant
fails to make any argument, let alone a compelling one, why his blanket demand for
production should be granted, and the Court is under no duty to conjure up a reason
for him. 16 Defendant had counsel, he had a full jury trial, and appellate review of 15F
his conviction.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Johnson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-johnson-delsuperct-2026.