Patterson v. State
| Decision Date | 03 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 265,2021 |
| Parties | TAJIIR PATTERSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
TAJIIR PATTERSON, Defendant Below, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE, Appellee.
No. 265, 2021
Supreme Court of Delaware
May 3, 2022
Submitted: March 9, 2022
Court Below - Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 1812009146 (N)
Upon appeal from the Superior Court. AFFIRMED.
Elliot Margules, Esquire, OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, Wilmington, Delaware; for Appellant Tajiir Patterson.
Matthew C. Bloom, Esquire, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Wilmington, Delaware; for Appellee State of Delaware.
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.
MONTGOMERY-REEVES, JUSTICE
This appeal arises from a discovery dispute regarding the scope of disclosure mandated by Superior Court Criminal Rule 16. In a bench trial beginning on March 12, 2020, the Superior Court found Appellant, Tajiir Patterson, guilty of invasion of privacy for filming a sexual encounter with D.L.[1] and distributing the video over social media without her consent. On August 6, 2020, the court sentenced Patterson to two years at Level V incarceration, suspended for twelve months at Level III probation.
As part of the investigation, the New Castle County Police extracted data, including over 9, 000 photos, from D.L.'s cell phone. Patterson's counsel was permitted to inspect these photos. The encounter occurred in late 2017, and nearly three years passed between the time of the recording and the trial. Because D.L.'s appearance had changed significantly during that time, the State sought to introduce Photo 1 into evidence to show her appearance at the time of the recording. Patterson's counsel objected because Photo 1 was not disclosed in discovery. The trial judge sustained the objection, ruling that photos not disclosed in discovery would be inadmissible, but photos contained within the cell phone extraction would be admissible. The State then sought to introduced Photo 2 into evidence, which was of D.L. from 2017 and was included in the cell phone extraction. Patterson's counsel objected. Photo 2 was admitted into evidence.
Patterson seeks reversal of his conviction, contending that the State violated its discovery obligations by not flagging the importance of the 2017 photos of D.L. and by not providing a copy of all the photos in D.L.'s phone. Patterson argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Photo 2 into the record given the State's alleged discovery violation. We affirm the conviction because the State did not violate its discovery obligation and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Photo 2 into evidence.
I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Encounter and Social Media Postings
Patterson and D.L. became friends while attending Hodgson Vocational Technical School together.[2] Patterson was also a friend of D.L.'s older brother.[3] In the summer and fall of 2017, D.L. had a relationship with a classmate; however, their relationship was tumultuous and contributed to D.L.'s severe depression and admission into Rockford Center for approximately one month in October 2017.[4] After the inpatient stay, D.L. participated in outpatient treatment and was placed on antidepressant medication.[5] D.L. ended her relationship with her classmate and began communicating with Patterson on Snapchat.[6]
Patterson and D.L. then saw each other at Patterson's house alone approximately ten times.[7]During these times they went on walks, smoked marijuana, and had sex.[8]
In late November or early December 2017, Patterson and D.L. met up at D.L.'s house. Despite being on medication for depression, D.L. and Patterson smoked marijuana[9] and drank vodka.[10] Patterson and D.L. then had sex.[11] D.L.'s memory of the sexual encounter was impaired because of the drugs and alcohol.[12] She recalled sexual positions and details of the bedroom.[13] She remembered seeing a flash and that the television was on during the encounter.[14] D.L. was not aware that Patterson was recording the encounter; the two had never recorded each other or taken photographs during past encounters.[15] After that night, D.L. had little contact with Patterson and eventually deleted him from her contacts.[16]Afterwards, D.L. resumed her relationship with her classmate, but they broke up again after D.L. informed him of her encounters with Patterson.[17]
On April 2, 2018, Patterson posted a video of himself having sex with an African American female on Snapchat with the caption "Happy Monday."[18] A mutual friend of
Patterson and D.L. noticed the video and shared it on his own Snapchat feed.[19] He recognized Patterson but not D.L., as her face was not visible in the video.[20] Patterson noticed that the friend shared the video; when Patterson inquired why, the friend responded that "[he] just had to grab it."[21] Patterson approved and asked the friend to repost it.[22]
By the time the friend reposted it, other students had already seen the video and were talking about it.[23] D.L. was not in school that day.[24] While lying in bed, she saw Patterson's video on the friend's Snapchat feed; once she watched the video, she recognized herself.[25]She recognized distinctive characteristics of her own body, including unique stretch marks, "popped" veins, and the particular shape of her stomach.[26] She also recognized the sound of her own voice "whimpering"[27] and had no doubt it was her.[28]
D.L. contacted the friend, informed him that she was the person in the video, and asked him to remove the video, which he did.[29] The friend then asked Patterson if D.L. was the female in the video. Patterson denied that it was D.L. and claimed it was an older unnamed woman.[30]
D.L. was shocked and humiliated by the video. She eventually showed the video to her guardian.[31] The guardian testified that after the incident, D.L. cried more, was angrier, and instigated more fights with siblings.[32] The guardian convinced D.L. to report the incident, after which police executed a search warrant of Patterson's home for cell phones, pictures, and bed sheets.[33]
B. The Phone Extraction and Discovery
On July...
To continue reading
Request your trial