McCoy v. State

Decision Date20 January 2015
Docket Number No. 595, 2012 CONSOLIDATED,No. 558, 2012 ,558, 2012
Citation112 A.3d 239
PartiesIsaiah W. McCoy, Defendant Below–Appellant, v. State of Delaware, Plaintiff Below–Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of Delaware

Erek L. Barron, Esquire, (argued ), Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP, Bethesda, Maryland; and Herbert W. Mondros, Esquire, Margolis Edelstein, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant–Below, Appellant.

John R. Williams, Esquire, Department of Justice, Dover, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff–Below, Appellee.

Before STRINE, Chief Justi ce, HOLLAND, RIDGELY, VALIHURA, Justices, and BOUCHARD,1 Chancellor, constituting the Court en Banc.

Opinion

HOLLAND, Justice:

This is a direct appeal from the convictions and death sentences of Isaiah McCoy (McCoy). Seven counts were submitted for the jury to decide: (1) First Degree Murder, intentionally causing the death of another person under 11 Del. C. § 636 ; (2) First Degree Murder, recklessly causing the death of another person while engaged in the commission of or the attempt to commit Robbery First Degree under 11 Del. C. § 636 ; (3) Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (Murder First Degree) under 11 Del. C. § 1447(a) ; (4) First Degree Robbery under 11 Del. C. § 832(a) ; (5) Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony (Robbery First Degree) under 11 Del. C. § 1447(a) ; (6) Second Degree Conspiracy under 11 Del. C. § 512 ; and (7) Motor Vehicle Theft under 11 Del. C. § 841(a). On June 29, 2012, McCoy was found guilty as to all but Count 7.

Following McCoy's two convictions for First Degree Murder, the trial court held a capital murder penalty hearing on July 3–10, 2012.2 On July 11, the jury found the following aggravating circumstances: the defendant was previously convicted of a felony involving the use of, or threat of, force or violence upon another person; the murder was committed while engaged in the commission of a robbery; and the murder was committed while engaged in the commission of, or attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit Robbery in the First Degree. The finding of these aggravating circumstances made McCoy eligible for the death penalty under 11 Del. C. § 4209. The jury found by a 10–2 vote, on both Counts 1 and 2, that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence. The jury recommended the death penalty.

On October 11, the trial judge found that “the aggravating circumstances found to exist outweigh the mitigating circumstances found to exist” and sentenced McCoy to death on Counts 1 and 2; 20 years incarceration (with the first 5 years mandatory) on Counts 3, 4, and 5; and 1 year incarceration on Count 6.

Issues on Appeal

In this appeal, McCoy alleges five grounds on which his convictions should be reversed. First, he argues that the Superior Court violated McCoy's right to a fair trial by seating a juror with significant potential bias. Second, he contends that the State's prosecutorial misconduct violated McCoy's due process rights. Third, he submits that the evidence was insufficient to sustain McCoy's convictions. Fourth, he argues that the Superior Court erroneously failed to instruct the jury on accomplice testimony before one of the State's witnesses testified, as required by Brooks v. State.3 Fifth, he alleges Delaware's capital punishment process violates the Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution under Alleyne v. United States.4

Under 11 Del. C. § 4209(g)(2) a., this Court must also automatically review every death sentence to determine whether “the death penalty was either arbitrarily or capriciously imposed or recommended, or disproportionate to the penalty recommended or imposed in similar cases....”5 We must also consider [w]hether the evidence supports the jury's ... finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance....”6

We have concluded that the Superior Court committed reversible error when it improperly denied McCoy's right to exercise a peremptory challenge to strike a potential juror. In addition, reversible error occurred when the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of a key witness for the State. We also address the pervasive unprofessional conduct of the prosecutor that permeated these proceedings and compromised McCoy's right of self-representation. Finally, we examine the other issues raised by McCoy, since there will be a new trial, and conclude that those issues are without merit.

State's Version of Events

On the evening of May 4, 2010, James Munford (“Munford”) was fatally shot once in the right side of his torso. Munford's girlfriend, Rekeisha Williams (“Williams”), testified at trial that she had arranged a drug deal the previous day between Munford and McCoy. McCoy was supposed to purchase Munford's 200 ecstasy pills in exchange for $750 and two grams of crack cocaine. Munford and McCoy had never met, but Williams had known McCoy for at least several months. Williams and McCoy agreed to meet in the parking lot outside the Rodney Village Bowling Alley in Dover, Delaware. Dashaun White (“White”), who is McCoy's nephew7 and lived in the same house as McCoy at the time, testified that McCoy invited him along on the pretext that McCoy would buy him clothing. White and Williams testified that they did not know each other before that night.

According to both White and Williams, Munford was sitting in the driver's seat and Williams was sitting in the front passenger's seat of Munford's Chevrolet Suburban when McCoy and White arrived. McCoy and White approached the rear passenger seat. McCoy entered the car, but instructed White to stay outside. After speaking with Munford for a few minutes, McCoy pulled out a revolver. At that point, Williams asked McCoy if she could leave, which he permitted.

There was an inconsistency between White and Williams at trial as to whether Williams asked if she could leave the vehicle, or if Munford requested that on her behalf. White testified that Munford had asked McCoy if Williams could leave. Williams testified that she had asked, and that her previous statements to police to the contrary were not truthful. Around the same time Williams left, McCoy instructed White to go to the front passenger's side of the vehicle. According to White's testimony, Munford then attempted to leave the vehicle, at which point McCoy shot him. White testified that he believed the bullet struck Munford in the back, consistent with McCoy's position in the back seat of the car.

Munford fell out of the car, but managed to run to the front of the bowling alley as McCoy continued to shoot. None of those bullets struck Munford. The medical examiner determined that Munford was only struck once, in the right side of his torso, from what appeared to be a downward trajectory. Nonetheless, the shot was fatal, and Munford died at the hospital soon after. After Munford died, Detective Donald Christie found seven $100 bills in Munford's pocket.

After Munford fled the vehicle, according to White's testimony, McCoy instructed White to drive the Suburban to an abandoned house nearby, where they wiped down the vehicle with White's shirt. They apparently did not find Williams' driver's license, which the police later found in the front side pocket of the vehicle. McCoy and White then walked to the home they shared with McCoy's mother and several others. White testified that McCoy burned the clothing they wore during the shooting. The police later recovered partially burnt clothing from McCoy's backyard.

White and Williams both testified that after the shooting occurred, McCoy sent his sister, Darya White, to accompany Williams back to McCoy's home. Williams claimed to the police at one point that she had been kidnapped by McCoy, but later admitted that she went to McCoy's home with Darya willingly. Multiple witnesses corroborated Williams' testimony that she spent the next two or three days at White and McCoy's home, including McCoy's mother, sister, and White.

Williams testified that she felt threatened by McCoy, and did not eat or use the bathroom while she was a guest at his home. But McCoy's mother and Darya both testified that Williams ate, asked for cigarettes, and watched television with the family. Williams also continued to send text messages to McCoy after she left his house.

The gun used in the murder was never recovered, but Loretta Williams (no relation to Rekeisha) reported her .38 Taurus Revolver stolen shortly after the shooting. Her son, Talan Bishop (“Bishop”), testified at trial that he took the gun and several bullets from his mother, intending to protect a friend, Abdul Bumbrey. Bishop gave the gun to McCoy on May 2 because he needed someone to hold it while he accompanied Bumbrey's girlfriend, who did not want the gun in the presence of her child. Bishop testified that he believed McCoy would return the gun, but that McCoy told him that he had thrown it into a bush because he saw police in the area.

It was not clear from Bishop's testimony when McCoy indicated he had disposed of the gun. Bishop initially lied to the police about what he had done with the gun. He testified at trial that he lied to give McCoy time to retrieve the gun because he believed McCoy was still planning to return it to him. Although the State's firearms expert, Carl Rone, could not say with certainty which specific gun was used to shoot Munford, he concluded that the .38 caliber bullet that killed Munford could have been fired from either a .38 or .357 firearm, including Loretta Williams' missing Taurus.

There is no dispute that after the shooting, McCoy retained possession of Munford's ecstasy pills. White testified that the pills were stored in two plastic sandwich bags in a gray lunch bag. Two other witnesses corroborated White's testimony regarding the plastic bags: McCoy's friend, Da'Janiel Smith, and McCoy's then-girlfriend Agealena Sauls. Williams also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • People v. Kabongo
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • May 20, 2021
    ...v. Soares , 377 Mass. 461, 492, 387 N.E.2d 499 (1979).In an additional case of note, the Delaware Supreme Court in McCoy v. State , 112 A.3d 239 (Del., 2015), recognized that peremptory challenges are "one of the most important of the rights" for an accused." Id. at 255 (quotation marks and......
  • People v. McDaniel
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 26, 2021
    ...Supreme Court had repeatedly held that the state's death penalty scheme complied with Apprendi and its progeny. (See McCoy v. State (Del. 2015) 112 A.3d 239, 269–271 ; Swan v. State (Del. 2011) 28 A.3d 362, 390–391 ; Brice v. State (Del. 2003) 815 A.2d 314, 321–322.) After Hurst , the court......
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 8, 2018
    ... ... 2017), motion to file delayed appeal granted , 2018-Ohio-1600, 19, 96 N.E.3d 296 (Ohio App. 25, 2018), appeal not allowed , 2018-Ohio-2639, 19, 96 N.E.3d 296 (Ohio July 5, 2018); Cossitt-Manica v ... Commonwealth , 778 S.E.2d 513, 516 (Va. App. 2015). 10. See McCoy v ... State , 112 A.3d 239, 267 (Del. 2015) ("[I]n the rare case where there is an irreconcilable conflict in the State's evidence concerning the defendant's guilt, such as would preclude a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, the trial court must remove the case from the jury's consideration and ... ...
  • Ellis v. Wyoming Dep't of Family Servs. (In re Termination of Parental Rights to LDB)
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • December 18, 2019
    ...processes of a jury."). It remains the reason several courts continue to apply the automatic reversal rule today. McCoy v. State, 112 A.3d 239, 258 (Del. 2015) (holding mistaken denial of a peremptory challenge requires automatic reversal in part because "[a]ny other conclusion would leave ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The chronic failure to discipline prosecutors for misconduct: proposals for reform.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 105 No. 4, December 2015
    • December 22, 2015
    ...v. Warden, 2016 WL 490285 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 12, 2016) (non-disclosure of evidence favorable to defendant); McCoy v. Delaware, 112 A.3d 239, 266 (Del. 2015) (improper cross examination of defendant); Starling v. Delaware, 130 A.3d 316 (Del. 2015) (improper conduct during trial and in cl......

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