Starling v. State

• Decision Date: 24 July 2006
• Docket Number: No. 556, 2005.,No. 554.,554.,556, 2005.
• Citation: 903 A.2d 758
• Parties: Chauncey S. STARLING, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

903 A.2d 758

Chauncey S. STARLING, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

No. 554.

No. 556, 2005.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: July 12, 2006.

Decided: July 24, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, Cr. I.D. No. 0104015882.

Upon appeal from the Superior Court.

AFFIRMED.

Bernard J. O'Donnell, Esquire, Office of the Public Defender, Wilmington, Delaware, for appellant.

Paul R. Wallace, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee.

Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.

HOLLAND, Justice.

This automatic appeal was filed on behalf of the defendant-appellant, Chauncey S. Starling, after he was sentenced to death following two separate convictions of Murder in the First Degree. The Superior Court originally sentenced Starling on June 10, 2004. Upon direct appeal, Starling's convictions were affirmed, but the two death sentences were vacated. This matter was remanded for "the limited purpose of resentencing under the appropriate standard articulated in 11 Del. C. § 4209(d)."¹ On October 12, 2005, the Superior Court again sentenced Starling to death for each count of Murder in the First Degree.

Procedural Background

The grand jury indicted Starling and co-defendant Richard G. Frink on two counts of Murder in the First Degree, two counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and one count of Conspiracy in the First Degree. Starling's murder trial commenced on October 15, 2003. On October 22, 2003, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as to all five counts of the indictment.

On October 29, 2003, the penalty phase of the trial began, concluding on November 4, 2003. The jury answered all special interrogatories affirmatively and unanimously recommended death as a sentence. The error that was committed when Starling was originally sentenced to death occurred after the jury made its findings and recommendations.² Consequently, the error's effects were limited solely to the trial judge's sentencing decision and did not affect the jury's findings and recommendations.³

Facts

About 8:30 p.m. on Friday, March 9, 2001, the barbers at Made-4-Men barbershop on 4th Street in Wilmington were working on several customers. Darnell Evans was seated in the first barber chair on the right, closest to the entrance of the shop. His girlfriend, Shaylyn Flonnory, was seated next to him. Damon Gist Sr., another regular customer, was also in the shop that evening. He had brought his five-year-old son, Damon Jr. ("DJ"), with him as he often did on Friday nights. DJ was sitting in the third barber chair from the entrance as he waited for his father. Several other people were also in the shop.

Flonnory saw a person walking on the sidewalk, dressed in black and holding a gun. Several people heard a shot fired from outside the barbershop just before the front window shattered. Lawrence Moore, the shop owner, was hit by flying glass. A person dressed in black, with a mask covering all of his face except his eyes, came into the barbershop. The gunman shot at Evans, who tried to flee toward the rear of the shop. The gunman continued to shoot at Evans. Evans fell to the floor at the back of the shop. The shooter followed Evans, stood over him and shot him twice in the head.

The gunman fled out the front door. Evans had been shot five times. DJ, who had been shot in the jaw, ran to his father with blood running from his mouth. Shopowner Moore followed the shooter out of the barbershop to the corner of 4th and Shipley streets. Then he realized that it was probably not wise to chase an armed man, and abandoned the chase. He last saw the gunman turn east onto 5th Street. DJ and Evans both died as a result of their wounds.

The witnesses police interviewed at the scene agreed that the gunman was dressed in dark clothing, including a sweatshirt with a hood. The gunman's face was mostly covered with some type of mask. None of the witnesses was able to identify the gunman.⁴ No weapon was recovered. The evidence gathered at the crime scene indicated that the weapon used was a .38 special or a .357 magnum.

About a month later, police discovered Alfred Gaines, a new witness regarding the shootings. Gaines testified that on the afternoon and evening of March 9, he was riding around Wilmington with his friends, Chauncey Starling and Richard Frink. Frink was driving. Starling was in the front passenger seat, and Gaines was behind him. As they drove past the Made-4-Men barbershop, Starling thought he saw Evans inside.

According to Gaines, Starling and Frink discussed whether Evans was the person in the barbershop. While Frink circled back to pass the barbershop again. Starling said that, if it was Evans, he would "put in some work." On the second pass, Frink said that it was Evans in the barbershop. Frink parked the car behind the barbershop on 5th Street between Market and Shipley streets.

Once the car was parked, Starling got out of the car and removed his jacket. He put on a "wave cap" and placed a gun in his pants. Starling was dressed in dark clothes, including a black hooded sweatshirt. Starling walked down the street to Shipley Street and turned toward Market Street. Frink and Gaines stayed in the car. Starling returned about fifteen minutes later, telling Frink, "I got him. I got him. I think I got a little boy, too." Frink then drove Gaines home.

Shortly after 10 p.m. that night, Starling telephoned Gaines saying he needed to talk. Gaines took a taxi to the house of Vickie Miller, Starling's girlfriend. Gaines testified that Starling appeared upset and admitted shooting a little boy. Starling's brother, Michael, was at Miller's house and later told police that Starling was "drunk out of his mind." Starling told Michael, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry." Michael drove Gaines home.

Starling's defense at trial attacked the credibility of the prosecution's primary witness—Gaines. The defense also pointed contradictions in the descriptions of the shooter that the various witnesses provided. Starling's mother and uncle testified that one or both of them had been with Starling on March 9 until nearly 9 p.m. Starling did not testify.

The jury found Starling guilty of two counts of Murder in the First Degree for the deaths of Darnell Evans and DJ Gist. It also found him guilty of the related weapons and conspiracy charges.

Penalty Hearing

Evidence was presented during the penalty hearing over a period of three days. The State alleged three statutory aggravating circumstances: first, Starling's course of conduct resulted in the deaths of two persons and the deaths were probable consequences of his conduct; second, as to the shooting of DJ Gist, the victim was younger than fourteen years old and Starling was more than four years older than DJ; and third, Starling had been previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of force or violence against another person.

The jury was instructed that its guilty verdicts for the two murders required it to find the first aggravating circumstance had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury also unanimously found the other two statutory aggravating circumstances had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was advised that its finding of at least one statutory aggravating circumstance made Starling eligible for the consideration of the death penalty and that it had to then answer a second question as to each of the two counts of murder:

5. Does the jury find by a preponderance of the evidence after weighing all relevant evidence in aggravation or mitigation which bears upon the particular circumstances or details of the commission of the offense and the character and propensities of the offender, that the aggravating circumstances found to exist outweigh the mitigating circumstances found to exist?

The jury was instructed that a "Yes" answer to this question meant a recommendation in favor of the death penalty and a "No" answer was a recommendation for a life sentence. All twelve jurors answered "Yes" to each count of Murder in the First Degree. The Superior Court judge imposed a sentence of death for each of the two murder convictions.

Death Sentence Review Mandatory

Review by this Court is statutorily mandated following the imposition of a death sentence.⁵ Although the mandatory statutory review is limited, it is not perfunctory.⁶ A death sentence may be imposed only in accordance with the bifurcated procedure proscribed by Title 11, section 4209. Section 4209(g)(2) provides:

The Supreme Court shall limit its review under this section to the recommendation on and imposition of the penalty of death and shall determine:

a. Whether, considering the totality of evidence in aggravation and mitigation which bears upon the particular circumstances or details of the offense and the character and propensities of the offender, the death penalty was either arbitrarily or capriciously imposed or recommended, or disproportionate to the penalty recommended or imposed in similar cases arising under this section.

b. Whether the evidence supports the jury's or the judge's finding of statutory aggravating circumstance enumerated in subsection (e) of this section and, where applicable, § 636(a)(2)-(7) of this title.⁷

In performing its mandatory statutory review, this Court is always cognizant that "death as a punishment is unique in severity and irrevocability."⁸

We generally begin our mandatory statutory review in each capital case by addressing subparagraph (b) of section 4209(g)(2). Following the United States Supreme Court decision in Ring v. Arizona,⁹ the Delaware statute was amended. Subparagraph (b) now requires this Court to examine the evidence in the record to determine whether it supports the unanimous findings of the jury that the...