Pierce v. State
| Decision Date | 04 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 417, 2020 |
| Parties | Cameron PIERCE, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Elliott Margules, Esquire, Office of Defense Services, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellant.
Andrew J. Vella, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellee.
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
Introduction
Following a three-day bench trial, the Superior Court convicted defendant-appellant Cameron Pierce ("Pierce") of two counts of Robbery First Degree, two counts of Wearing a Disguise During the Commission of a Felony, and two counts of Felony Theft. The Superior Court sentenced Pierce to a total of 60 years at Level 5 incarceration, suspended after 6 years, to be followed by probation.1
Pierce appeals his conviction, asserting that (i) the Superior Court erred in admitting palmprint evidence because it lacked the requisite foundation for admission, and (ii) the Superior Court's verdict was not supported by evidence sufficient to identify Pierce as the suspect who robbed Silverside Discount Liquors.
We find no merit in either of Pierce's claims of error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of conviction.
On July 26, 2018, at approximately 9:30 p.m., an armed robber entered and robbed Silverside Discount Liquors in Wilmington, Delaware (the "First Robbery"). Anesh Kalyanapu ("Kalyanapu"), Silverside Discount Liquors’ manager, complied with the armed robber's demands, the armed robber exited, and Kalyanapu then called 911.
Thereafter, Detective Anthony Tenebruso ("Detective Tenebruso"), a member of the Delaware State Police (Troop 2) Criminal Investigations Unit, was called to the scene. Detective Tenebruso called the State's Evidence Detection Unit after he viewed Silverside Discount Liquors’ surveillance system and observed that the armed robber had not worn gloves during the robbery.2
Detective Timothy Harach ("Detective Harach"), an evidence detective with the State's Evidence Detection Unit, attempted to collect fingerprint evidence using latent fingerprint dust. However, he was unsuccessful.
On August 16, 2018, Kalyanapu again worked the closing shift at Silverside Discount Liquors. At approximately 7:30 p.m., an armed robber entered and robbed the store (the "Second Robbery"). After Kalyanapu complied with the armed robber's demands, the armed robber fled, and Kalyanapu called 911.
Detective Brian McDerby from the Criminal Investigative Unit of the Delaware State Police (Troop 2) ("Detective McDerby") responded to Silverside Discount Liquors. There he reviewed the surveillance video and observed that the armed robber had not worn gloves. Detective McDerby spoke with Detective Anthony Pantalone from the Evidence Detection Unit ("Detective Pantalone"). Detective McDerby stood by while Detective Pantalone processed the scene.
Detective Pantalone collected various items and dusted the front counter with fingerprint powder. In total, Detective Pantalone obtained seven latent prints.3 He placed this evidence in a sealed envelope and submitted the sealed envelope to the State Bureau of Identification for review by forensic latent print examiner and Automated Fingerprint Identification System ("AFIS") section administrator, Anthony DiNardo ("DiNardo").4
DiNardo analyzed the seven latent prints obtained by Detective Pantalone from the Second Robbery. Two of the latent prints were from the register counter.5 The other prints were of no value or relevance to the case.6 DiNardo submitted the prints to AFIS, an automated computer database that identifies possible matches for latent prints of unknown origins. The AFIS report showed that the two latent prints found on the sales counter belonged to Pierce or to nine other individuals.7 DiNardo manually analyzed, compared, and evaluated the two latent prints from the front counter to "known prints that were already on file" in the AFIS system and determined with one hundred percent certainty that they were a match to Pierce.8 The State entered into evidence Exhibit 58, DiNardo's analysis report, which had been premarked without objection. Pierce's counsel advised the Superior Court that he had no objection to its admission.9
On December 17, 2018, Pierce was indicted on two counts of Robbery First Degree, two counts of Aggravated Menacing, two counts of Wearing a Disguise During the Commission of a Felony, and two counts of Felony Theft over $1,500.
On September 24, 2019, Pierce waived his right to a jury trial and consented to a bench trial. Prior to trial, the State entered a nolle prosequi on two counts of Aggravated Menacing and one count of Felony Theft.
The State called Kalyanapu, Detective Tenebruso, Detective Harach, Detective McDerby, and DiNardo to testify.10 Pierce's counsel did not call any witnesses, and Pierce did not testify at trial. We summarize the evidence relevant to our resolution of the issues presented.
On direct examination by the State, Kalyanapu testified about both robberies. In the First Robbery, the armed robber ordered Kalyanapu to put all the cash from both registers in a plastic bag and to give him a bottle of Rémy Martin cognac from behind the counter. Kalyanapu complied with the armed robber's demands, the armed robber exited, and Kalyanapu thereafter called 911. Kalyanapu remained on the phone with the 911 operator until two Delaware State Troopers arrived on the scene.
Kalyanapu described the armed robber as a young black male, between the ages of twenty-two to twenty-five, who wore a disguise consisting of a gray hoodie, a handkerchief over his nose, and a hat.
In the Second Robbery, an armed robber entered the store and ordered Kalyanapu to give him money from both registers. According to Kalyanapu, he replied: "Again?" The armed robber responded: 11 As in the First Robbery, the armed robber asked for a pint of Rémy Martin. After Kalyanapu complied, the armed robber fled, and Kalyanapu called 911.
Again, Kalyanapu was unable to see the armed robber's face. Kalyanapu described the armed robber as a black man who wore a thin yellow hoodie with black or gray horizontal stripes, shorts, a hat, and a handkerchief over his nose. Kalyanapu testified that he was not sure if it was the same person. When Kalyanapu was questioned by the State about the armed robber's voice, he stated that the armed robber had a deep voice. When the State asked Kalyanapu whether the armed robber's voice sounded the same in both robberies, Kalyanapu stated that it did seem like the armed robber in both robberies had the same voice. He also stated that the robber had a gun, but it was a different gun.
On cross-examination, Pierce's counsel asked Kalyanapu about his prior statement regarding feeling a gun pressed into his back. Kalyanapu clarified and stated that he was "a little confused" and "[t]hat did not happen."12
On direct examination by the State, Detective Anthony Tenebruso testified about the First Robbery, his course of conduct during the investigation, and his search of Pierce's known residence.
Following the First Robbery, Detective Tenebruso was called to the scene. In his role as Chief Investigating Officer, he spoke with the two state troopers on the scene and interviewed Kalyanapu. He called the State's Evidence Detection Unit after he viewed Silverside Discount Liquors’ surveillance system and observed that the armed robber had not worn gloves during the robbery.
Detective Tenebruso was unable to locate additional surveillance cameras in the area or any witnesses to the First Robbery. Unable to develop a suspect, Detective Tenebruso generated a wanted flyer using a still photograph from the surveillance video and disseminated it to local law enforcement. The dissemination of the photograph generated no useful responses.
After the Second Robbery and Pierce's subsequent arrest, Detective Tenebruso, learned that Pierce resided at 804 West 34th Street. After Pierce was processed in connection with the arrest warrant, Detective Tenebruso obtained a search warrant for that residence to search for clothing, handguns, or anything else that could connect Pierce to the robbery. He did not find anything of value or anything else that belonged to Pierce in that house. Detective Tenebruso also testified that he determined Pierce's cell phone number and attempted to obtain data that would show which cell towers Pierce's phone was connected to during the time of the robberies. However, there was no data regarding the whereabouts of Pierce's cell phone at the time of either robbery.
On cross-examination, Pierce's counsel questioned Detective Tenebruso concerning the efforts he made to identify the getaway vehicle. Detective Tenebruso testified that the getaway vehicle was located too far away from the surveillance camera and, thus, he could not find any identifiable information. He also testified that he did not use any investigative techniques, such as enlargement or enhancement of the image in the video, in an attempt to isolate any details concerning the getaway vehicle.
On direct examination by the State, Detective Timothy Harach ("Detective Harach"), an evidence detective with the Delaware State Police Evidence Detection Unit, testified about the First Robbery. Following the First Robbery, he responded to the scene. After he reviewed the surveillance video, he observed that the armed robber had touched the top of the sales counter, the right entrance door to the store, and a "lottery printout."13 He processed the sales counter and right entrance door with latent fingerprint dust and collected the lottery...
To continue reading
Request your trial