Manley v. State

Decision Date24 February 1998
Docket Number54,Nos. 33,1997,s. 33
Citation709 A.2d 643
PartiesMichael MANLEY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. . Submitted:
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Delaware

Court Below--Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. Nos. IN95-11-1323 through 1325 and 95-12-0684 through 0686.

Thomas A. Foley (argued), Wilmington, and Anthony A. Figliola, Jr. (argued), Wilmington, for appellant.

Timothy J. Donovan, Jr., William E. Molchen (argued), and Thomas E. Brown, Deputy Attorneys' General, Wilmington, for appellee.

Before VEASEY, C.J., WALSH, HOLLAND, HARTNETT, and BERGER, JJ. (constituting the Court en Banc)

HOLLAND, Justice:

This is an appeal after a capital murder trial and penalty hearing where the defendant-appellant, Michael Manley ("Manley"), was sentenced to death. On November 13, 1995, Manley and his co-defendant, David Stevenson ("Stevenson"), were arrested and charged with the murder of Kristopher Heath ("Heath"). Heath's death had occurred earlier that day. After a joint trial in the Superior Court, a jury found both Manley and Stevenson guilty of Murder in the First Degree and related offenses. 1 The State then sought the death penalty for both defendants.

At the penalty phase of their joint trial, seven members of the jury voted to recommend the death penalty for Manley and five members voted against that recommendation. 2 By a vote of eight to four, the same In this Court, Manley's automatic appeal was consolidated with Manley's separately filed direct appeal. Manley has raised five contentions in this Court. First, he argues that the Superior Court erred in denying his request for more open-ended voir dire regarding prospective jurors' viewpoints about the death penalty. Second, he argues the Superior Court erred by removing two jurors for cause, who were determined not to be "death qualified" and by refusing to remove three jurors for cause, who Manley alleges were not "life qualified." Third, he argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion by failing to grant his motion for severance. Manley argues that he was prejudiced because his defense and that of his co-defendant, Stevenson, were mutually antagonistic. Fourth, Manley argues the Superior Court violated his Fifth Amendment right of confrontation by permitting the State to introduce into evidence a statement by Stevenson, who did not testify at trial. Fifth, Manley argues that the imposition of his death sentence was disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases.

                jurors also recommended that Stevenson receive a death sentence.  The Superior Court sentenced both Manley and Stevenson to death by lethal injection. 3  An automatic appeal of each death sentence was docketed with this Court pursuant to 11 Del.  C. § 4209(g) and Supreme Court Rule 35
                

This Court has carefully considered each of Manley's contentions. We have also reviewed his sentence of death, as required by the Delaware Death Penalty Statute. We have determined that the arguments raised by Manley, challenging the judgments entered after both the guilt and the penalty phases of his trial, are without merit. We have also concluded that the Superior Court's decision to sentence Manley to death by lethal injection should be affirmed.

FACTS

The defendants' joint trial commenced on October 30, 1996, and concluded on November 12, 1996. The facts, as set forth in this opinion, are taken primarily from the findings in the Superior Court's written decision following the guilt phase of Manley's trial and the subsequent penalty hearing. See State v. Manley, Del.Super., No. 9511007022, Barron, J., (Jan. 10, 1997) (Findings After Penalty Hearing). Before announcing its sentences, the Superior Court determined that to put this case into a proper perspective, it had to begin with a recitation of the events that had occurred during September 1994, more than a year prior to the murder of Heath. This opinion also begins with those 1994 actions.

Macy's Thefts

On September 30, 1994, Stevenson was arrested by Detective Thomas Ford of the Delaware State Police in connection with the fraudulent use of credit cards to purchase Macy's gift certificates. 4 Stevenson had been employed by Macy's and worked in the ladies shoe department when these purchases were made. In making the arrest, Detective Ford relied upon information supplied to him by, among others, Parminder Chona ("Chona") and Heath, who were both employed by Macy's as security officers. Their investigation of the Macy's internal theft culminated in Stevenson confessing to the thefts.

In February 1995, Stevenson was indicted on nine counts of felony Theft and nine counts of felony Unlawful Use of a Credit Card. Four of the thefts occurred on September On April 1, 1995, Stevenson's attorney filed with the Superior Court a Motion to Suppress. This motion sought to suppress all statements which Stevenson had given to agents of Macy's department store on September 30, 1994. Stevenson's attorney argued that his statement was not given voluntarily. The Superior Court held a suppression hearing on August 23, 1995. The presentation of the evidence included testimony from Chona and Heath. The Superior Court concluded that Stevenson's September 30, 1994 statement to the Macy's security personnel was voluntary. Accordingly, the Motion to Suppress was denied.

2, 1994; five of the thefts occurred on September 15, 1994. Each theft was in the amount of $500, for a total of $4,500.

The theft case against Stevenson was originally set for trial on April 12, 1995. After four continuances, the trial was rescheduled for November 13, 1995. Two of the witnesses subpoenaed to testify on November 13, 1995, were Chona and Heath.

The Murder

The Superior Court concluded the credible evidence established that Stevenson and Manley left Stevenson's Wilmington residence on November 13, 1995, at approximately 6:45 a.m. 5 They were in a vehicle, jointly owned by Stevenson and his sister. That vehicle was distinctive in appearance because its dark blue paint had peeled off in many places, leaving silvery splotches in all such locations. A gold and red tassel hung from the rearview mirror. The vehicle was a 1989 Mercury Topaz with Delaware license number 727970.

At approximately 7 a.m., Michael Chandler ("Chandler") was leaving for work when he observed the "distinctive" vehicle in a parking lot at the Cavalier Country Club Apartments. The vehicle was occupied by two black males. Chandler noticed that the driver was wearing a dark winter wool hat. Chandler was suspicious because both men seemed to be slouching in their seats. Chandler testified that he recalled seeing the gold and red tassel hanging from the rearview mirror. Chandler lived in Building 10B, Capano Drive.

A number of the State's witnesses testified that they heard gunfire at approximately 7:40 a.m. These witnesses were all tenants of the buildings surrounding the parking lot at the Cavalier apartment complex. Their descriptions of what they saw varied. Two witnesses, Susan Butler ("Butler") and Philip Hudson ("Hudson"), testified that they saw a stocky black man wearing a dark blue sweatshirt or jacket and dark pants or blue jeans running across the parking lot immediately after hearing the gunfire. 6 This description matched Manley, who was wearing a dark blue pullover shirt and blue jeans when he was apprehended.

The witness called by the State who had the best vantage point at the time of the shooting was Lance Thompson ("Thompson"). He lived in a third floor apartment. When he heard four to six shots of gunfire, Thompson ran to his window which looked out over the parking lot. He saw a man get into the passenger side of the suspect vehicle. The vehicle, which had paint peeling off its top, backed up towards his apartment building and then exited the parking lot. Thompson had a clear look at the license number. He immediately wrote it down on a piece of paper so he would not forget the number.

Thompson exited his building and told Patrolman Daniel Meadows of the New Castle County Police Department that he had written down the vehicle's license number. Patrolman Meadows, who had just arrived at

                the scene, took the piece of paper and immediately had the number broadcast by the police dispatcher.  That automobile license number was Delaware 727970.  Patrolman Meadows gave the piece of paper back to Thompson following the broadcast. 7  The tag number was checked in the motor vehicle records.  Those records showed the registered owner's address as being 206 West 20th Street, Wilmington, Delaware.  This information was also broadcast by the police dispatcher
                
The Apprehension

Shortly after 8 a.m., Officers Murray, Witte, Danese and Stark of the Wilmington Police were dispatched to the area of Stevenson's residence, at 206 West 20th Street in the City of Wilmington. Upon arrival, Officer Murray exited his police vehicle and approached on foot two black men who were exiting the suspect vehicle. When the two men turned in Officer Murray's direction and saw him, they immediately got back into the Mercury Topaz and sped off. The vehicle turned left on Washington Street and then right on West 19th Street, heading down that street the wrong way. The vehicle jumped the curb on West 19th Street and sustained a flat tire.

The two men then led the police on a short foot chase. One of the men was apprehended after running out of an alley onto Washington Street, between West 18th Street and West 19th Street. This was Manley. The other man ran to the corner of West 18th Street and Baynard Boulevard where he boarded a bus. The police boarded the bus, located the suspect and removed him from the bus. This was Stevenson.

Both suspects had cuts on the palms of their hands and were breathing heavily. Stevenson was sweating. Manley was wearing a dark blue...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • People v. Capistrano
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 4, 2014
    ...187 Ill.2d 144, 240 Ill.Dec. 520, 718 N.E.2d 1, 27–28 ; State v. Barone (1998) 328 Or. 68, 969 P.2d 1013, 1020–1022 ; Manley v. State (Del.1998) 709 A.2d 643, 655–656 ; Walker v. State (Miss.1995) 671 So.2d 581, 624–626 ; State v. Quesinberry (1987) 319 N.C. 228, 354 S.E.2d 446, 450–451 ; M......
  • Morgan v. Com.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • January 19, 2006
    ...v. State, 338 Ark. 515, 998 S.W.2d 738, 744-45 (1999); State v. Pelletier, 209 Conn. 564, 552 A.2d 805, 810 (1989); Manley v. State, 709 A.2d 643, 655-56 n. 15 (Del. 1998); State v. Ramos, 119 Idaho 568, 808 P.2d 1313, 1315 (1991); Dye v. State, 717 N.E.2d 5, 18 n. 13 (Ind.1999); State v. N......
  • Starling v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Delaware
    • July 24, 2006
    ...10. Brice v. State, 815 A.2d 314, 320 (Del.2003) (discussing the 2002 amendment to Delaware's death penalty statute). 11. Manley v. State, 709 A.2d 643, 658 (Del. 1998) (citing Wright v. State, 633 A.2d 329, 339 (Del.1993)). 12. Id. 13. Manley v. State, 709 A.2d at 658; Wright v. State, 633......
  • Capano v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Delaware
    • August 10, 2001
    ...to these two questions were, in effect, a recommendation for either the death penalty or life imprisonment. See Manley v. State, Del. Supr., 709 A.2d 643, 647 n. 2 (1998). 415. 11 Del. C. § 416. Super Ct. Crim. R. 32(a)(1)(C). Compare Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(C) ("Before......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Delaware Death Penalty: An Empirical Study
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 97-6, October 2012
    • October 1, 2012
    ...Affirmed Executed Jackson v. State, 684 A.2d 745 (Del. 1996), cert. denied , 520 U.S. 1171 (1997). Affirmed Executed Manley v. State, 709 A.2d 643 (Del. 1998), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 893 (1998). Affirmed On Row Stevenson v. State, 709 A.2d 619 (Del. 1998), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 967 (1998......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT