State v. Burgos

• Decision Date: 31 March 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 1103004911
• Parties: STATE OF DELAWARE v. MIGUEL BURGOS, Defendant.
• Court: Delaware Superior Court

STATE OF DELAWARE
v.
MIGUEL BURGOS, Defendant.

Case No. 1103004911

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

Submitted: December 2, 2013
Decided: March 31, 2014

OPINION
On Appeal from a Decision of the Court of Common Pleas, AFFIRMED.

Louis B. Ferrara, Esquire, Ferrara & Haley, Wilmington, Delaware 19806, Attorney for Defendant.

Daniel B. McBride, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, State of Delaware, Department of Justice, 820 North French Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attorney for State of Delaware.

MEDINILLA, J.

Page 2

INTRODUCTION

This case comes before this Court on appeal from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas ("CCP") finding Defendant, Miguel Burgos ("Defendant"), guilty of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol in violation of 21 Del. C. § 4177. For the reasons set forth below, this Court finds that Defendant's arguments do not warrant a reversal of the trial court's decision. Therefore, the CCP's decision is AFFIRMED.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On March 6, 2011 Corporal John Breen of the Delaware State Police ("Cpl. Breen") responded to the scene of a single car accident at the corner of Route 141 and Route 13 in New Castle County, Delaware. Cpl. Breen observed Defendant near the disabled vehicle. Defendant was unbalanced and exhibited slurred speech and an odor of alcohol. Cpl. Breen confronted Defendant, who first confessed to being intoxicated and then failed to complete field sobriety tests. Defendant was arrested by Cpl. Breen and charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol, Inattentive Driving, and Failure to have Insurance Identification in violations of 21 Del. C. §§ 4177, 4176 and 2118, respectively.

On November 19, 2012, the trial judge heard and denied Defendant's Motion to Suppress and presided over a non-jury trial immediately thereafter. On

Page 3

February 25, 2013, after hearing Defendant's oral Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and Re-argument, Defendant was found guilty of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol.

Defendant filed an Opening Brief for this appeal on July 1, 2013. Defendant asserts three independent arguments in support of this appeal: (1) Defendant was not properly identified, (2) the trial court improperly admitted evidence in violation of CCP Rule 16, and (3) the trial judge improperly advocated on behalf of the State.

In response, the State filed its Answering Brief on July 26, 2013. Defendant filed a Reply Brief on August 5, 2013. Oral arguments were presented to this Court on December 2, 2013.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

As an intermediate appellate court, the function of this Court in its review of appeals from the CCP mirrors that of the Supreme Court.¹ As such, this Court has an obligation to correct errors of law and to review findings of fact "to determine if they are sufficiently supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process."² Questions of law receive de novo review, whereas

Page 4

questions of fact are reviewed under a "clearly erroneous" standard.³ The trial court's findings must be supported by substantial evidence, or in other words, such evidence as a "reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion."⁴ If substantial evidence exists for a finding of fact, this Court must accept that ruling, as it must not make its own factual conclusions, weigh evidence, or make credibility determinations.⁵

DISCUSSION

I. In-Court Identification Not Required

Defendant argues that the State did not prove Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because the State failed to identify Defendant in court. In lieu of providing legal authority to support his position, Defendant argues that this requirement "is so axiomatic that it has never been brought before a Delaware Appellate Court."⁶ This Court finds Defendant's argument to be without merit.

It is the State's burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, all facts necessary to establish each element of any crime charged.⁷ Although not an explicit and independent statutory element, "[i]dentity is an element common to all

Page 5

crimes."⁸ The issue of identity is whether the trial judge could have rationally found sufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime charged.⁹ In this case, there was ample identification evidence presented at trial from which the trial judge properly made such determinations. Cpl. Breen identified Defendant by name several times while testifying regarding his investigation of the incident and his various interactions with this particular individual. Additional evidence considered by the trial judge, including an intoxilyzer card containing Defendant's full name, date of birth, sex and driver's license number, corroborated the State's position and Cpl. Breen's testimony regarding the identification of Defendant. Further, there was no testimony that Defendant had been improperly identified.

The State's evidence was sufficient to show that Defendant was properly identified. While the State did not elicit testimony from Cpl. Breen to confirm that Defendant was sitting next to his defense attorney, Defendant provides no precedent to support the proposition that an in-court identification is required. This Court recognizes that the absence of an in-court identification is relevant to the sufficiency of identification evidence, but will not adopt the per se requirement

Page 6

advocated by Defendant.¹⁰ As such, this Court finds that the evidence, as set forth and presented at trial, was sufficient for the trial judge to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was properly identified.

II. Admitting Evidence Contained in Cpl. Breen's Undisclosed Field Notes was Not Reversible Error

Defendant next argues that the State committed a CCP Rule 16 discovery violation by failing to turn over an arresting officer's field notes and that the trial judge committed reversible error in failing to suppress evidence contained in said notes.¹¹ This Court disagrees.

CCP Rule 16(a)(1)(C) states in pertinent part:

Upon request of the defendant the state shall permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the state, and which are material to the preparation of the defendant's defense or are intended for use by the state as evidence in chief at the trial, or were obtained from or belong to the defendant.¹²

A trial judge's application of rules relating to discovery is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.¹³ Even if a violation has occurred, this Court will only...