Bullock v. State
Decision Date | 27 June 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 277, 1999.,277, 1999. |
Citation | 775 A.2d 1043 |
Parties | Lester R. BULLOCK, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
Court | Supreme Court of Delaware |
Raymond M. Radulski and James D. Nutter [argued], Office of the Public Defender, Wilmington, for appellant.
Kim Ayvazian, Department of Justice, Georgetown, for Appellee.
Before VEASEY, C.J., WALSH, HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, JJ.
On October 22, 1998, a jury convicted Lester B. Bullock of manslaughter arising from a collision between Jennifer Alleger's car and Bullock's truck at the intersection of Rt. 40 and Pleasant Valley Road. The State charged Bullock with manslaughter for recklessly causing the death of Alleger "by driving at an excessive speed while impaired by alcohol which resulted in a collision with another car."1 At trial, at the conclusion of the State's case, Bullock moved for a judgment of acquittal and argued that the State's evidence showed that Alleger's disregard of a red light as he entered the intersection on a yellow light primarily caused the collision that resulted in her death. The Superior Court denied the motion. The jury, following the Court's instructions, convicted Bullock of manslaughter and the Court sentenced him to five years at Level V, suspended after one year for declining levels of probation. Bullock filed a timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, Bullock argues that no reasonable juror could conclude that he proximately caused the accident because Alleger became the sole proximate cause of the accident when she disregarded a red light and drove her car into his path after his truck had entered the intersection controlled by a yellow light. Bullock also argues that the Superior Court erred by giving the jury an "unavoidable accident" instruction instead of an "accident" instruction and by failing to instruct the jury properly on reckless causation in accordance with 11 Del. C. § 263.2 We conclude: (1) that the failure to instruct the jury in accordance with Section 263 deprived Bullock of an instruction that contained an essential principle of law necessary to decide the factual issue presented to them; and (2) that the Superior Court erred in giving an "unavoidable accident" instruction that was not supported by the facts of the case and that undermined the jury's ability to intelligently perform its duty. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of the Superior Court and REMAND this case for a new trial.
On December 8, 1997 at approximately 6:25 p.m., Bullock drove his pick-up truck westward on Route 40 in New Castle County. As he approached the intersection of Route 40 and Pleasant Valley Road, the traffic control signal in front of him at the intersection turned yellow. At the same time, Alleger waited in a turn lane on eastbound Route 40, facing a solid red arrow, preparing to cross the westbound lanes of Route 40 and turn north onto Pleasant Valley Road. Bullock increased his speed through the intersection. As he drove through the intersection, Alleger entered the intersection against the red signal and collided with Bullock's truck.
Delaware State Police Trooper Raymond Shatley responded to the accident. He found Alleger's car on Route 40 approximately 100 feet west of the intersection. He found Bullock's truck on Route 40 farther west of the intersection than Alleger's car. Shatley determined that Alleger was dead at the scene.
Shatley questioned Bullock. He detected an odor of alcohol on Bullock and noticed that Bullock's eyes were glassy. Bullock told Shatley that he had consumed three beers earlier that afternoon. Although Bullock passed several field sobriety tests including a portable breathalyzer test, his performance on other tests led Shatley to believe that Bullock was impaired by alcohol. Bullock slurred the letters of the alphabet beyond recognition and failed the one-leg-stand and finger-to-nose tests. Shatley also administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus and the walk-and-turn. The results of these tests supported Shatley's suspicion that Bullock was impaired by alcohol.
Paramedics transported Bullock to the Christiana Emergency Room to draw a blood sample to determine his blood-alcohol level. Approximately two hours after the accident, Bullock's blood-alcohol level registered .079 grams per deciliter, a reading below the legal level for intoxication. Shatley did not cite Bullock for driving under the influence of alcohol. The State, however, arrested Bullock for criminally negligent homicide and then sought an indictment for manslaughter.3
Delaware State Police Officer Philip Strohm, Jr., an accident reconstruction expert, arrived at the accident scene approximately one hour after the accident. Strohm testified that Bullock faced a yellow light when he proceeded through the intersection and that Alleger faced a solid red arrow. He opined that Alleger attempted to cross Route 40 onto Pleasant Valley Road. Strohm determined that Bullock clearly had the right of way at the time of the accident. Strohm determined that only 300 feet separated the two vehicles when Alleger initially pulled out onto Route 40 and that Bullock spanned this distance in three seconds. According to Strohm, a normal person can perceive and react to a danger in 1½ seconds. At fifty-five mph, a driver would travel 120 feet before perceiving and reacting to a danger and would travel another 260 feet before the car could come to a complete stop. He determined that at the point of impact, Alleger was travelling slightly above 11 mph while Bullock was traveling approximately 77 mph. Markings on the road indicated that Bullock steered right in an attempt to avoid the collision. Strohm concluded that, while Bullock's speed and consumption of alcohol may have contributed to the accident, "the primary contributing circumstance of the collision was Ms. Alleger passing a red light."4
The primary issue in this case is whether the Superior Court properly instructed the jury on reckless causation. A secondary issue is whether the Superior Court erred when it instructed the jury on "unavoidable accident." Bullock's counsel, however, did not object to the unavoidable accident instruction given or proffer an instruction based upon Section 263. Therefore, we review for plain error. Plain error exists when the error was "so clearly prejudicial to [a defendant's] substantial rights as to jeopardize the very fairness and integrity of the trial process."5
"The primary purpose of jury instructions is to define with substantial particularity the factual issues and clearly to instruct the jury as to the principles of law [that] they are to apply in deciding the factual issues presented in the case before them."6 "A trial court must give instructions to a jury as required by evidence and law whether the parties request the instruction or not."7 Indeed, 8 "As a general rule, a defendant is not entitled to a particular instruction, but he does have the unqualified right to a correct statement of the substance of the law."9 And "[w]hile `some inaccuracies and inaptness in statement are to be expected in any charge,' this Court will reverse if the alleged deficiency in the jury instructions `undermined ... the jury's ability to intelligently perform its duty in returning a verdict."'10
At trial, the Superior Court instructed the jury that:
Bullock argues that under Delaware law, when recklessness is an element of the crime, the State must prove that the defendant was a proximate cause of an injury. Bullock argues that no reasonable juror could conclude that he proximately caused the collision because Alleger's negligence was an intervening and superseding cause of the collision. Therefore...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. State
...Smith's firing of his weapon at Coverdale was fraught with danger and likely to cause death or great bodily harm. 103. Bullock v. State, 775 A.2d 1043, 1047 (Del.2001); Floray v. State, 720 A.2d 1132, 1138 (Del.1998)(quoting Flamer v. State, 490 A.2d 104, 128 104. Id. (citing Baker v. Reid,......
-
Wright v. State
...omitted). 14. Burrell v. State, 766 A.2d 19, 25 (Del.2000). See also Berry v. State, 2002 WL 1484510, at *5 (Del.Supr.); Bullock v. State, 775 A.2d 1043, 1052 (Del.2001). 15. Hall v. State, 431 A.2d 1258, 1260 (Del. 1981) (italics added). See also Ward v. State, 366 A.2d 1194, 1196 (Del. 19......
-
Green v. State
...omitted).72 Probst , 547 A.2d at 122.73 Opening Br. at 35.74 Smith v. State , 913 A.2d 1197, 1241 (Del. 2006) (quoting Bullock v. State , 775 A.2d 1043, 1047 (Del. 2001) ).75 Probst , 547 A.2d at 120.76 Opening Br. at 37.77 Green , 2019 WL 6216247, at *7.78 We also admit to certain misgivin......
-
Mills v. State
...element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby violating the defendant's federal due process rights.").95 Bullock v. State , 775 A.2d 1043, 1047 (Del. 2001) (internal citations and internal quotation marks omitted).96 See App. to Opening Br. at A50–51 ("I will now instruct you on......
-
A divided court in more ways than one: the Supreme Court of Delaware and its distinctive model for judicial efficacy, 1997-2003.
...State, 816 A.2d 770 (Del. 2003); Walton v. State, 821 A.2d 871 (Del. 2003); State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198 (Del. 2002); Bullock v. State, 775 A.2d 1043 (Del. 2001); Capano v, State, 781 A.2d 556 (Del. 2001) [hereinafter Capano II]; Taylor v. State, 777 A.2d 759 (Del. 2001) [hereinafter Taylo......