State v. Cagle
| Citation | 332 A.2d 140 |
| Parties | STATE of Delaware, Appellant, v. Nathan E. CAGLE, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 26 December 1974 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Upon appeal from the Superior Court.
Charles P. Brandt, Deputy Atty. Gen., Wilmington, for appellant.
Arlen B. Mekler, Asst. Public Defender, Wilmington, for appellee.
Before HERRMANN, C.J., DUFFY, J., and MARVEL, Vice Chancellor.
The State appeals under 10 Del.C. § 9903 1 from the Superior Court's reversal of a conviction in the Court of Common Pleas for New Castle County. We permit this appeal in order to determine an important procedural question concerning the scope of review in an appeal on the record from the Court of Common Pleas to the Superior Court.
The defendant was convicted in the Court of Common Pleas for driving under the influence of alcohol, 21 Del.C. § 4176, resulting in an accident. Based upon the testimony of the defendant, the arresting officer, and the private citizen who reported the accident and the defendant's 'spectacular' driving to the police, the Trial Judge found that defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. 2
The defendant appealed his conviction to the Superior Court under 11 Del.C. § 5301. 3 The Superior Court ruled that 'the State has not sustained the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the erratic driving', and reversed the conviction. On its appeal to this Court, the State contends that the Superior Court applied an improper standard of appellate review. We agree.
In reviewing the conviction, the Superior Court erroneously applied the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard of proof. The test on such appeal is not whether the defendant is guilty as charged beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether there is sufficient evidence to support the findings of the Trial Court. Levitt v. Bouvier, Del.Supr., 287 A.2d 671 (1972).
Appeals from the Court of Common Pleas for New Castle County to the Superior Court are on the record and are not tried de novo. 11 Del.C. § 5301. The Superior Court's application of the 'reasonable doubt' standard, in effect, required the State to prove for a second time that the defendant was guilty as charged.
In Levitt v. Bouvier, Del.Supr., 287 A.2d 671 (1972), in the context of an appeal in a non-jury Superior Court case to this Court, we discussed the proper scope of review of the findings of fact of a Trial Judge. We apply the rules set forth in Levitt to the case before us:
An appeal from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas for New Castle County, sitting without a jury, is upon both the law and the facts. In such appeal, the Superior Court has the authority to review the entire record and to make its own findings of fact in a proper case. However, in exercising that power of review, the Superior Court may not ignore the findings made by the Trial Judge. The Superior Court has the duty to review the sufficiency of the evidence and to test the propriety of the findings below. If such findings are sufficiently supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process, the Superior Court must accept them, even though independently it might have reached opposite conclusions. The Superior Court is only free to make findings of fact that contradict those of the Trial Judge when the record reveals that the findings below are clearly wrong and the Appellate Judge is convinced that a mistake has been made which, in justice, must be corrected. Findings of fact will be approved upon review when such findings are based on the exercise of the Trial Judge's judicial discretion in accepting or rejecting 'live' testimony. See Barks v. Herzberg, Del.Supr., 206 A.2d 507 (1965). If there is sufficient evidence to support the findings of the Trial Judge, the Superior Court sitting in its appellate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. State
...(Del. 1985) (Superior Court's function as intermediate appellate court is basically the same as the Supreme Court's).10 State v. Cagle , 332 A.2d 140, 142 (Del. 1974).11 Bennefield v. State , 2006 WL 258306, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 4, 2006) ; Cagle , 332 A.2d at 142 ("The Superior Court......
-
Anderson v. State
...17. Id. at *4. 18. Id. at *7–11. 19. Hicklin v. Onyx Acceptance Corp., 970 A.2d 244, 248 (Del.2009). 20. Id.; see also State v. Cagle, 332 A.2d 140, 142–43 (Del.1974). 21. Reddy v. MBKS Co., Ltd., 945 A.2d 1080, 1085 (Del.2008) (establishing standard of review for a trial court's formulatio......
-
Ellison v. State
...below that the initial stop of Appellant by the arresting officer was unconstitutional.2 See 11 Del.C. 5301(c); See also State v. Cagle, Del.Supr., 332 A.2d 140 (1974).3 See note 1, Supra.4 The relationship between these two provisions was noted by the drafters of the 1973 Criminal Code in ......
-
Seth v. State
...record ... and the product of an orderly and logical deductive process," the Superior Court must accept the finding. State v. Cagle, Del.Supr., 332 A.2d 140, 142 (1974). Faced with conflicting testimony as to whether the officer threatened to "take defendant to jail," the trial judge was in......