State Of Del. v. Brooke
| Decision Date | 09 October 2009 |
| Docket Number | I.D. No. 0901022199. |
| Citation | 3 A.3d 293 |
| Parties | STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff, v. Jack BROOKE, Defendant. |
| Court | Delaware Family Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Carole Davis, Esquire, Delaware Department of Justice, Georgetown, DE, Attorney for the State of Delaware.
Jack Brooke, pro se.
This is the Court's decision concerning restitution owed by the juvenile defendant in the above referenced matter. The State is seeking $57.90 restitution on behalf of Ronald Jenkins for out of pocket expenses related to damage of his motor vehicle. 1 The State is also seeking $256.00 on behalf of Ronald Jenkins' wife, Debbie Jenkins, for wages she lost for having to attend and testify at trial.
Although the defendant has not objected to how the amounts of restitution were calculated or whether it would be unreasonable to require the defendant to pay those amounts, the defendant has sought much broader and more extensive relief in his motion to “Dismiss all charges/Vacate the Conviction” (“Motion to Dismiss”) and his motion for the “Denial of Restitution,” both filed on August 27, 2009. Indeed, Defendant, by these motions, seeks to have his adjudications vacated, or, as an alternative, to be relieved of any obligation to pay restitution.
Defendant threw a wooden board through the back window of a Toyota Corolla, thereby shattering the window of the vehicle driven by the teenage son of Ronald and Debbie Jenkins, Mark Jenkins. The Defendant's reckless act fortunately did not cause any serious injury to a young lady seated in the back seat of the vehicle, but it did result in the defendant's adjudication of Reckless Endangering and Criminal Mischief. During the June 26, 2009 trial, Debbie Jenkins testified that she owned the car that was damaged. Following the Defendant's adjudication on this charge, the Court sentenced the Defendant. The sentence required the Defendant to pay restitution in an amount to be subsequently determined.
On July 29, 2009, the State filed a “Motion to Amend the Sentence” and attached necessary documentation for determining the correct amount of restitution to be ordered. The documentation demonstrated that the vehicle that was damaged during the crime was titled in the sole name of Ronald Jenkins. However, as already noted, Ronald Jenkins' wife, Debbie Jenkins, testified that she owned the damaged vehicle. Ronald Jenkins did not testify at trial.
Defendant's two motions focus on this technical difference between the actual title ownership in the name of one individual, as opposed to the broader rights of ownership, such as in this case, where an automobile used by several members in a family happens to be titled just in the name of the husband. Not until after the trial, at this later stage of the determination of restitution, has this actual title ownership become clear. The State has answered that, despite the technical form of title ownership, Debbie Jenkins holds ownership rights in the vehicle along with her husband pursuant to Delaware's marital property laws.
The motions set forth by the Defendant present two distinct issues. First, does the language “property of another person” in the statute pertaining to Criminal Mischief require the State to prove at the criminal trial exactly to whom the damaged property belongs? For the reasons that follow, the Court determines that the State need not prove who owns the damaged property in order to prove the criminal element of “property of another” required by the statute for Criminal Mischief.
Second, Defendant argues that Debbie Jenkins is not the true victim of the crime of Criminal Mischief. Defendant states that only Ronald Jenkins' name appears as the title owner as well as the owner of the insurance policy for the vehicle on the collision center's invoice. Although Robert Jenkins is Debbie Jenkins' husband, Defendant argues that because the State relied on testimony that Debbie Jenkins was the owner of the car, “Debbie Jenkins and others cannot pursue charges for a car they do not own.” 2 Defendant's motion for the “Denial of Restitution” claims that Debbie Jenkins should not be able to receive restitution because she is not the owner of the car. Furthermore, Defendant avers that restitution for Ronald Jenkins should not be granted because the fact of his ownership of the vehicle was never proven at trial. The Court rejects both of these arguments.
The crime of Criminal Mischief is defined in title 11 of the Delaware Code, section 811, as follows:
The Delaware Code defines the term “property of another person” in title 11, section 857, which states:
defendant also has an interest in the property and regardless of the fact that the other person might be precluded from civil recovery because the property was used in an unlawful transaction or was subject to forfeiture as contraband. Property in possession of the actor shall not be deemed property of another who has only a security interest therein, even if legal title is in the creditor pursuant to a conditional sales contract or other security agreement.
All of the statutes cited above from §§ 841-856, 1450 and 1451 involve thefts of various types of property, including identity, firearms, and services, as well as the receipt of those various items. When addressing the significance of the “property of another” element of the criminal statute for felony theft, 4 the Delaware Supreme Court stated “it is clear that ‘ownership’ is not an element of the offense; ‘property of another person’ simply describes the subject of theft as property to which defendant has no right to possess.” 5
Again when considering the meaning of the “property of another” element as it applies to the offense of Receiving Stolen Property 6 in Guyer v. State, 7 the Delaware Supreme Court held that since proving the elements of theft did not require proving ownership, that the Receiving Stolen Property statute likewise would not require it. 8 9
Although the definition section of Title 11, § 857 does not state specifically that it applies to the interpretation of the element of “property of another” in the statute for Criminal Mischief, the Court can see no reason why the Court should not apply the same logic to the phrase as already applied to it by the Supreme Court for these other statutes. All of these crimes, whether involving the theft of property or the damage to property, pertain to the unlawful action of a defendant over property to which the defendant has no claim of right or entitlement or as § 857 states, “... the defendant is not privileged to infringe.”
The Court therefore holds for the crime of Criminal Mischief, where a key element of the crime requires proof that the defendant caused damage to the “property of another,” it is not necessary for the State to prove at trial the specific identity of the owner, but only that the defendant has no claim of ownership or entitlement to the property.
In Moore v. State, the appellant argued that the manner in which the restitution had been calculated was incorrect and that his due process rights had been violated for the Court's failure to hold a hearing regarding restitution. 10 The State provided a copy of its calculations to appellant's counsel; appellant's counsel made objections to the calculations, but never requested a hearing on the matter. 11 The trial court rejected the appellant's arguments against the method of calculation. 12 The Delaware Supreme Court determined there was no violation of appellant's due process rights and that the lower Court need not provide any greater procedural protection. 13
In Benton v. State, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the maximum amount of restitution the defendant could be ordered to pay was not limited to evidence presented during the criminal trial. 14 At trial, Benton was found guilty of embezzling at least $2,300.00. The trial court subsequently issued an order of restitution in the amount of $21,400.65. As Justice Holland noted, the defendant, Benton, disregarded “the legal distinction between evidence that is either relevant or necessary to establish the elements of an offense at a criminal trial and evidence that is admissible at a hearing to determine the appropriate amount of restitution.” 15 Justice Holland went on to say, “There is no constitutional or statutory mandate that the complete economic consequences of a defendant's illegal conduct be established at the criminal trial.” 16
In the present case, Defendant urges the Court to deny restitution to the victims of his criminal act. In his motion, he concludes ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Bear Stearns Companies Inc. Sec.
... ... Dubbs, Esq., James W. Johnson, Esq., Michael W. Stocker, Esq., New York, NY, for Lead Securities Plaintiff State of Michigan Retirement Systems.Brower Piven, P.C., by: David A.P. Brower, Esq., New York, NY, Robbins Umeda LLP, by: Marc M. Umeda, Esq., George C ... ...