Biddle v. State
| Docket Number | 323,2022 |
| Decision Date | 31 July 2023 |
| Parties | JAMIL T. BIDDLE, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Delaware |
Submitted: May 17, 2023.
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
Karen L. Valihura Justice.
This 31st day of July 2023, after consideration of the parties' briefs, the record below, and the argument of counsel, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On November 18, 2021, a Superior Court jury convicted defendant below-appellant Jamil T. Biddle ("Biddle") of Robbery First Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony ("PFDCF"), and Conspiracy Second Degree.
(2) On appeal, Biddle claims that the Superior Court: (i) abused its discretion and violated Biddle's right to a fair trial when it allowed the State to introduce the lay opinion of three police officers that Biddle was one of the suspects in a surveillance video shown to the jury; (ii) violated his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial when it discharged a juror without attempting to assess her impartiality; and (iii) abused its discretion by allowing a police officer to testify as to the reason for the absence of any alleged victim or eyewitness at trial. We conclude that each of Biddle's claims lacks merit. Therefore, we AFFIRM the judgment of the Superior Court.
(3) By way of background, on November 22, 2019, at around 9:56 a.m Wilmington Police Department ("WPD") detective Joran Merced-Falcon was on patrol when a dispatch went out with a "shots fired" incident in the 200 block of North Franklin Street in Wilmington.[1] Shotspotter also indicated that six shots had been fired very close by, at 1216 West Second Street. Although investigating officers found shell casings and one live round in the area, they did not find any potential victims or eyewitnesses to any crimes that may have been committed.
(4) While at the police station that same day, Detective Merced viewed surveillance video of the area captured by a CitiWatch camera that is located on the corner of Second and Franklin Streets (the "CitiWatch Video"). The CitiWatch Video appeared to capture an armed robbery followed shortly thereafter by an exchange of gunfire further down the street. Because Detective Merced was unable to identify anyone in the video himself, he disseminated "attempt-to-identify" flyers to all police officers employed by the WPD. The flyers showed a screen capture of the CitiWatch Video.[2] As a result, police identified two of the suspects: they identified Joseph Coverdale ("Coverdale")[3] as one suspect and Biddle, as the other.
(5) Both Biddle and Coverdale were arrested on November 29, 2019, one week after the incident. Upon his arrest, police officers took a photo of Biddle. On January 6, 2020, a New Castle grand jury indicted Biddle and Coverdale. Biddle was charged with Robbery First Degree, PFDCF, Conspiracy Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Assault First Degree, and related counts of PFDCF and Conspiracy Second Degree.
(6) After denying Biddle's motion in limine to exclude police officer testimony identifying him in the CitiWatch Video, the Superior Court, before the jury was selected, held an evidentiary hearing on November 15, 2021 during which the State attempted to lay a foundation for each of the police officers' identification testimony.[4] First, Officer Gaetan MacNamara testified that in his capacity as a patrol officer and investigator, he had interacted with Biddle and the interactions included face-to-face conversations "approximately 25 times."[5] He had seen Biddle in public "approximately 75 times."[6]Second, Cpl. David Schulz testified that in his capacity as a patrol officer and member of the Street Crimes Unit, he had face-to-face, conversational interactions with Biddle "anywhere from eight to ten times."[7] He had viewed Biddle in public or on CitiWatch at least an additional ten times.[8] Finally, Cpl. Leonard Moses testified that in his capacity as a patrol officer and member of the Street Crimes Unit, he had face-to-face conversational interactions with Biddle "between 20 and 40 times."[9] He observed Biddle around the west side of Wilmington "a lot."[10]
(7) Following argument and the trial judge's review of the relevant caselaw,[11]the trial judge stated that the court was "at the outset mindful and aware and cautious and takes heed to the Supreme Court's caution regarding its reservations about the admission of identification testimony by police officers without regard to the instructions identified by the court, particularly in Saavedra."[12] The court then concluded:
(8) Further, the trial judge acknowledged Biddle's argument that the correct "measuring stick" was not what Biddle looked like at the time of trial versus what he looked like at the time of the incident (i.e., in the CitiWatch Video), but rather, was what Biddle looked like at the time of his arrest photograph versus what he looked like at the time of the incident.[14] However, the trial court clarified that, after its review of Biddle's cited cases, the correct comparison was trial versus the incident.[15] He then stated that, "out of the cautions set forth by the Supreme Court with respect to this type of testimony," he would include an appropriate instruction with respect to identification.[16] (9) Accordingly, at trial, the State introduced testimony from four police officers as to the identification of Biddle in the CitiWatch Video.[17] The first officer to testify was Detective Merced. As chief investigating officer, Detective Merced testified as to how the investigation proceeded, including how he had disseminated the still shot of Biddle from the CitiWatch Video to the WPD for identification purposes. Detective Merced also testified that in his experience handling well over 100 cases, victims in the city of Wilmington are generally uncooperative,[18] as are witnesses.[19]
(10) The second, third, and forth police officers then testified.[20] Each identified Biddle in court,[21] and in the CitiWatch Video.[22] Each testified that Biddle's appearance in court was different than his appearance in the CitiWatch Video, specifically that Biddle had changed to a braided hairstyle. In addition, he had acquired glasses, removed his facial hair, and had lost weight.[23]
(11) After both the State and Coverdale had rested their cases, and after Biddle had presented his alibi defense, but before Biddle rested his case, the trial court informed counsel during a sidebar that Juror No. 1 believed that she recognized the previous witness.[24] Juror No. 1 then clarified that, with respect to the man in the screenshot of the CitiWatch Video wearing the white sweatshirt and denim jacket (identified by the testifying officers as Biddle), there was "someone that looks like him that I might know."[25]Specifically, Juror No. 1 stated that he was incarcerated and looked like someone that she may be working with at her job, to get him into community services following his incarceration.[26] The trial judge then engaged in the following colloquy with Juror No. 1:
(12) Thereafter, the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial