Hooks v. State, 43

• Decision Date: 21 July 1992
• Docket Number: No. 43,1992,43
• Parties: Kevin T. HOOKS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. . Submitted:
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Delaware

Page 158

612 A.2d 158

Kevin T. HOOKS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

No. 43, 1992.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: July 21, 1992.

Decided: Aug. 17, 1992.

Court Below--Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County; Cr.A. No. IK-91-09-0262.

Superior Court, Kent County.

AFFIRMED.

Before HORSEY, MOORE and HOLLAND, JJ.

ORDER

HOLLAND, Justice.

This 17th day of August, 1992, it appears to the Court that:

1) The defendant-appellant, Kevin T. Hooks ("Hooks"), was convicted, following a jury trial in the Superior Court, of Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine. On January 14, 1992, Hooks was sentenced to a five year term of incarceration.

2) Hooks raises three contentions in this direct appeal. First, Hooks contends that the Superior Court abused its discretion when it refused to grant a mistrial based upon inadmissible, prejudicial testimony of the arresting officer. Second, Hooks asserts that the Superior Court abused its discretion by refusing to order the State to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. Third, Hooks maintains that the State failed to offer expert testimony sufficient to sustain his conviction for possession with intent to deliver cocaine. We find no merit to any of these contentions. Accordingly, we affirm Hooks' conviction.

3) The relevant testimony presented at trial established that on the night of July 12, 1991, Detectives William Merritt and Blaine Daisey of the Delaware State Police drove into an area known as "Hickstown," near Felton, Delaware, to purchase narcotics as part of an undercover investigation into suspected narcotics dealing in that locale. The detectives stopped their unmarked vehicle near a group of men standing along the side of the road. A man, who was wearing an Oakland Athletics' baseball cap with a green shirt and green shorts, approached the car and asked the officers what they wanted. Detective Merritt stated that he wanted to buy cocaine powder. The man opened a clear plastic bag containing what appeared to be vials of crack cocaine and small bags of powdered cocaine. He handed Merritt a bag of powdered cocaine in exchange for twenty dollars.

The detectives immediately returned to the police station, where they were met by a Detective Schleifer. Detective Schleifer showed the undercover officers a photographic array of suspected Hickstown drug dealers. Both Merritt and Daisey selected the photograph of Hooks as the man who had sold them the cocaine. To confirm this identification, Detective Schleifer contacted a confidential informant who had been stationed in Hickstown by the police in order to observe drug transactions. The informant confirmed that it was Hooks who had sold the cocaine to the detectives. The informant also confirmed that Hooks was wearing a green "Oakland A's outfit." Hooks was arrested on August 26, following the completion of the undercover operation in Hickstown.

At trial, Hooks testified in his own defense. On direct examination, he admitted having a prior felony criminal record, including a prior narcotics offense. He denied, however, selling cocaine to Detectives Merritt and Daisey. The jury found him guilty as charged.

4) The first contention Hooks raises in this appeal involves three instances of allegedly improper testimony given by Detective Schleifer at Hooks' trial. The record reflects that Hooks' attorney made three respective motions for a mistrial following each allegedly improper comment. The Superior Court denied each motion. The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is entirely within the trial judge's discretion. Thompson v. State, Del.Supr., 399 A.2d 194, 199 (1979). Therefore, on appellate review, this Court will reverse the Superior Court's decision to deny Hooks' motion for a mistrial only if the Superior Court abused its discretion. See id.

5) Hooks first challenges Detective Schleifer's statement that he recognized the photograph of Hooks, which had been selected from the lineup by Detectives Merritt and Daisey, because Detective Schleifer had "previous dealings with Kevin Hooks" and "knew who Kevin Hooks was." Hooks contends that this statement improperly implied that he had engaged in prior criminal activity and, therefore, unfairly prejudiced his defense. The Superior Court found no suggestion of criminal activity and denied Hooks' motion for a mistrial. The Superior Court, however, did instruct the jury to disregard Detective Schleifer's comment.

Given this record, we conclude that, even assuming that Detective Schleifer's comment was prejudicial, any prejudice was cured by the Superior Court's "striking of the offending testimony and admonition of the jury to disregard it." Edwards v. State, Del.Supr., 320 A.2d 701, 703 (1974). See also Kornbluth v. State, Del.Supr., 580 A.2d 556, 561 (1990). Moreover, in light of Hooks' own direct testimony about his prior criminal history, any alleged prejudice caused by Detective Schleifer's testimony was rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Spencer v. State, Del.Supr., 307 A.2d 794, 796 (1973).

6) Hooks also contends that a second comment by Detective Schleifer, which attempted to explain the manner in which the photographic lineup was compiled, improperly implied that Hooks was known to local police as a drug dealer:

The way I established that set of pictures is my year-long investigation in the area getting to know the people that frequent in that area. It's basically--there is quite a few people that hang out along that road and after working in that area for quite a long time, I got to know who those people were. Also, through contacting other drug investigators that would work in, similarly in that area ...

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection, Your Honor. May we approach?

The record reflects that the Superior Court, after considering the arguments of counsel, directed the court reporter to read back the challenged testimony. After considering Detective Schleifer's testimony, along with Hooks' motion for a mistrial, the trial judge concluded that the challenged testimony did not implicate Hooks with any prior criminal activity because "[m]erely identifying drug investigators as one source of knowledge of people who are within a designated area does not establish that those within a designated area have committed any crime." Accordingly, the trial judge denied Hooks' motion for a mistrial. We find this conclusion was well within the Superior Court's broad discretion. Thompson v. State, 399 A.2d at 199. Consequently, Hooks' contention is without merit.

7) Hooks' final challenge to Detective Schleifer's testimony concerns his explanation of the seven week delay between the time of the undercover transaction and the date of Hooks' actual arrest. Detective Schleifer stated that the Hickstown investigation had focused upon "various drug dealers" and that the operation was not terminated and the arrests were not finally made until the "majority of the drug dealers" were implicated. The record reflects that Hooks'...