Howell v. State
| Decision Date | 14 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 372, 2020 |
| Citation | 268 A.3d 754 |
| Parties | Karieem J. HOWELL, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Delaware |
Joseph A. Hurley, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellant Karieem Howell.
Carolyn S. Hake, Esquire, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellee State of Delaware.
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
At the heart of the State's prosecution of Karieem Howell for numerous drug and weapons offenses stood the testimony of Brian Caldwell, a witness who had agreed to cooperate with the prosecution in return for a favorable plea agreement. It is permissible, of course, for the trier of fact in a criminal case to consider a witness's agreement to testify for the prosecution in exchange for favorable treatment in the witness's separate case when assessing the witness's credibility. Yet during Howell's trial, the trial judge instructed Howell's jurors, at the beginning of Caldwell's damning testimony, that they could not consider Caldwell's agreement with the prosecution in weighing his credibility.
That the court's instruction was legally erroneous the State concedes. But, because Howell's lawyer did not object to the instruction, we may only review the mistake for plain error—that is, error that so affected Howell's substantial rights that his failure to object is excused. The State contends that the strength of the evidence independent of Caldwell's testimony and the correct instructions regarding witness credibility provided to the jury at the close of evidence suffice to erase any prejudice that Howell might have suffered because of the erroneous instruction.
Our review of the trial record persuades us otherwise. Caldwell's testimony was pivotal evidence upon which the jury's determination of key elements of the crimes charged likely turned. Those issues include the quantity of marijuana Howell possessed, his delivery of the marijuana to others, and his knowing possession of an illegal firearm. Without Caldwell's testimony, the prosecution's case was susceptible to doubt; with it—if the jury found it credible —the likelihood of conviction increased dramatically. The trial court's instruction, however, unduly restricted the jury's assessment of Caldwell's credibility and undermined the fairness of Howell's trial. Therefore, we reverse his convictions and remand to the Superior Court for a new trial.
Howell and his co-defendants—his brother Malique, mother Sharon, and cousin Harrison Dorsey—were indicted on multiple charges of drug dealing and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (PFDCF), single counts of conspiracy and possession of a weapon with an obliterated serial number, and two misdemeanor drug charges. The indictment was the product of a joint investigation by the Delaware State Police and the New Castle County Police Department, which culminated on February 16, 2018 in the execution of search warrants at two New Castle County residences: one at 12 Bradbury Drive in New Castle—Sharon's home—and the other at 23 Aldershot Drive in Newark, where Howell and Malique lived.
Detective Patrick McAndrew of the Delaware State Police, the investigation's chief officer, executed the search warrant at 12 Bradbury. He first went to the "back bedroom"1 where he found an illegal sawed-off shotgun next to the bed and a handgun on the nightstand. He also found and seized $2,406 in cash from a bureau in the bedroom.
Detective McAndrew then went to the basement where he noticed "an area that appeared to be designated as a bedroom."2 On one of the bedroom's walls hung "curved letters ... that said Reem,"3 which the detective understood to stand for Karieem. About ten feet from the bedroom in an unfinished area sat a picnic table that, to Detective McAndrew, "appeared to be a drug packaging and resale location. ..."4 On the table were a vacuum-sealer machine, multiple freezer bags, many of which appeared to have marijuana residue either on or in them. Although McAndrew described the residue—he referred to it as "shake"—as a "large quantity of green marijuana pieces,"5 the amount of marijuana recovered in this search was immeasurably small. Though virtually empty when he seized them, the freezer bags (according to McAndrew, there were "upwards of 100" of them6 ) were capable of holding "about a pound of marijuana."7 McAndrew also found a large chest that contained ammunition, an assault rifle magazine, a handgun holster, and "a large quantity of small particles of marijuana."8
Detective Michael Macauley, also of the Delaware State Police, executed the search warrant along with other officers at 23 Aldershot, a split-level house approximately 50 yards from an elementary school, which Howell rented and where he and Malique were then living. The Superior Court summarized the searching officers’ haul at 23 Aldershot:
Later that day, Detective McAndrew applied for, and the Justice of the Peace granted, a warrant for Howell's arrest. The affidavit of probable cause attached to the warrant application focused exclusively on what was found at 23 Aldershot; it did not mention the search at 12 Bradbury. Accordingly, the complaint10 accompanying the warrant consisted of seven charges, all alleged to have been committed at 23 Aldershot. The charges ranged from drug dealing—specifically, possession with intent to deliver 132 grams of marijuana—to possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Five days later, Howell turned himself in and was arrested on this warrant.
Less than a week after the simultaneous searches of 12 Bradbury and 23 Aldershot and the day after Howell's arrest, the police raided the home of Brian Caldwell, seizing 340 grams (or 12 ounces) of marijuana, $11,400 in cash, and used plastic vacuum-sealer bags with markings similar to those on the bags found at 12 Bradbury. The police arrested Caldwell, a development that did not bode well for Howell.
When the police interviewed Caldwell on the night of his arrest, he admitted that he purchased marijuana—a pound to two pounds at a time—for resale. But Caldwell did not say how frequently he purchased marijuana. And, although he told the interviewing officer the nicknames of his supplier, the record does not disclose that nickname.
Four months later, things changed. According to Howell's counsel, "[i]n June, Mr. Caldwell, with counsel, comes forward and wants to be a cooperating witness, and he provides a second video statement, which is parallel[ ] in many respects to that which was given in February, but is contradictory in other respects that are material to his credibility."11
As far as we can tell, neither Caldwell's February 22 statement nor his June statement are part of the record in this case.12 But it would appear that, at the very least, when Caldwell spoke with the police officers in June, having expressed his desire to cooperate, he fingered Howell as his supplier and tied him to the drug dealing operation, evidence of which the police found during their search of the two residences. We derive that conclusion from the fact that, when Howell was arrested in February, he was only charged with offenses tied to 23 Aldershot. But when the State sought, and the grand jury returned, Howell's indictment in July of 2018, it included weapons charges related to the weapons seized at the Bradbury property. And a month later, Howell was reindicted, this time under an indictment that included drug dealing charges related to activity at both 12 Bradbury and 23 Aldershot. As will be seen, Caldwell's trial testimony was instrumental in linking Howell to the drug dealing enterprise, including the activity at 12 Bradbury.
In early January 2019, Howell's three co-defendants entered into plea agreements, acknowledging varying levels of culpability in the drug dealing operation that gave rise to Howell's indictment. Howell's mother, Sharon, pleaded guilty to three felonies—drug dealing, conspiracy in the second degree, and possession of a destructive weapon. His brother, Malique, pleaded guilty to two felonies—possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and drug dealing. And Harrison Dorsey entered a plea of guilty to a misdemeanor-level conspiracy.
By contrast, Howell was determined to go to trial, which was scheduled to begin on January 23, 2019. By that time, Howell's indictment had been refined to include drug dealing and weapons charges linked to both 12 Bradbury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gordon
...... [34] See id. at. 81:10-13. . . [35] See id. at. 81:14-18. . . [36] See D.I. 32. The Court. specifically stated it would correct the error on the printed. jury instructions. D.I. 53 at 90:14-16; 91:16-20. . . [37] See Howell v. State, 268. A.3d 754, 774-75 (Del. 2011) (citing Sheehan v. Oblates. of St. Francis de Sales, 15 A.3d 1247, 1255-56 (Del. 2011)) ("No doubt, there are circumstances where a minor. flaw in a jury instruction that is not objected to in the. trial court will not rise ......