State v. Monroe, ID No. 0601021343 (Del. Super. 5/14/2010)
| Decision Date | 14 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | ID No. 0601021343. |
| Parties | STATE OF DELAWARE v. JAMAIEN MONROE, Defendant. |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
Andrew J. Vella, Esquire, and Caterina Gatto, Esquire, Deputy Attorneys General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for the State.
Jennifer-Kate Aaronson, Esquire, and Patrick J. Collins, Esquire, Aaronson, Collins and Jennings, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant.
Defendant's motion for new trial results from a February 2009 trial where Defendant was found guilty of non-capital Murder First Degree, three counts of Reckless Endangering First Degree, and two counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child. Defendant's charges on which he was found guilty stemmed from the April 2, 2007 shooting of Andre ("Gus") Ferrell. Although Defendant was also charged with Attempted Murder First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony stemming from a separate incident, alleged to have occurred on January 26, 2006, Defendant was acquitted of these charges.
At trial, the State sought to introduce evidence pursuant to D.R.E. 404(b) of a prior, uncharged robbery allegedly committed by Defendant on January 25, 2006 (the day before the acts that resulted in the attempted murder charge) as evidence of his "motive" to murder Ferrell. The State alleged that about fifteen months prior to Ferrell's murder, Defendant and some associates robbed Ferrell of a necklace. The State sought to introduce evidence of this "necklace robbery" as support for its theory that the supposed growing animosity between Defendant and Ferrell, after January 25, 2006 and continuing to April 2, 2007, eventually resulted in Defendant killing Ferrell.
This Court held a pretrial hearing on Defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of that necklace robbery. The State called three witnesses to testify that Defendant was involved in the robbery of Ferrell. The witnesses were Ronald Wright, Jonathan Wisher, and Kason Wright, and, based on their combined testimony, including especially a videotaped statement of Kason Wright to the police, where Kason Wright stated that he was with Defendant when Defendant robbed Ferrell, this Court ruled that the State could introduce evidence of Defendant's involvement in the robbery of Ferrell because, among other reasons, and as urged by the State, the Court concluded that the jury could possibly find that that evidence tended to establish a "motive" for Defendant to murder Ferrell. The Court held that the evidence of Defendant's involvement in the necklace robbery was "plain, clear, and conclusive."
However, Kason Wright unexpectedly refused to testify at trial and invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when he was called as a witness. Thus, the jury never heard either any live testimony of Kason Wright or his videotaped statement (sought to be introduced pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 3507). Wisher and Ronald Wright testified at the trial immediately before Kason Wright was to be called to testify.
The only issue raised by Defendant's motion for new trial is whether the jury appropriately heard "plain, clear, and conclusive" evidence of the prior uncharged necklace robbery at trial coming only from Wisher and Ronald Wright.
For the following reasons, this Court holds that the testimony of Jonathan Wisher and Ronald Wright, and without the testimony of Kason Wright, provided the requisite "plain, clear, and conclusive" evidence that could tend to show that Defendant was involved in the necklace robbery the day before the alleged attempted murder, and, thereby, had a motive to murder, or to attempt to murder, Andre Ferrell.
Additionally, and alternatively, this Court holds that even if the evidence from Jonathan Wisher and Ronald Wright about the necklace robbery was not "plain, clear, and conclusive," and therefore should have been excluded (or the jury otherwise instructed not to consider it), Defendant is not entitled to a new trial because (1) Defendant has waived any claim that evidence of the necklace robbery was not "plain, clear, and conclusive" by failing to have raised this issue at trial when Kason Wright refused to testify; (2) even if Defendant did not waive this argument, this Court's Getz instruction adequately remedied any problem; (3) Defendant was ultimately acquitted of Attempted Murder First Degree and the related Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, thereby suggesting a lack of prejudice to Defendant by the admission of the evidence; and (4) the admission of such evidence was not error because there was otherwise sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of Murder First Degree and the related charges.
Finally, this Court has examined the standards for admissibility of "other crimes, wrongs, or acts" pursuant to Rule 404(b) used in the federal courts and in other jurisdictions and concludes that the necklace robbery evidence in this case would have been admitted pursuant to standards of admissibility of 404(b) evidence in the federal courts and in most other states in that the State presented "sufficient evidence" through the testimony of Wisher and Ronald Wright (assuming, of course, that that latter standard was applicable in Delaware).1
Accordingly, Defendant's motion for a new trial is DENIED.
On November 14, 2007, Defendant was indicted for two separate shootings involving Ferrell.2 Defendant was charged with Attempted Murder First Degree and various firearms offenses for the first incident that occurred on January 26, 2006.3 He was also indicted on Murder First Degree, firearms offenses, and multiple counts of Reckless Endangering First Degree and Endangering the Welfare of a Child for the shooting death of Ferrell on April 2, 2007.4 The facts related to these incidents have previously been summarized by this Court as follows:
The first incident took place on January 26, 2006 when Wilmington Police responded to complaints of shots fired in the area of East 23rd and Carter Streets. Police officers were unable to locate witnesses at the scene, but shortly thereafter, the victim, Andre Ferrell, of the shooting arrived at Wilmington Hospital with multiple gunshot wounds to his back. The shooter in this incident was identified as Defendant. A warrant containing multiple charges, including Attempted Murder First Degree, was issued for Defendant.
Fifteen months later, on April 2, 2007, and after having evaded police apprehension on the warrant for his arrest, Defendant was allegedly implicated by witness identification in a second shooting on that date of the same victim. The victim died from the injuries he sustained. The incident on April 2, 2007 took place in the parking lot of Derr's Market near Newark and was investigated by the New Castle County Police.5
Defendant also filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the necklace robbery of Ferrell that occurred at the G&P Deli on the corner of 28th and North Market Streets in Wilmington on January 25, 2006.6
A. The Evidence at the Pretrial Getz Hearing
At the pretrial Getz hearing,7 Kason Wright testified first and identified Jamaien Monroe as the defendant present in the courtroom.8 Kason Wright testified that he was at the G&P Deli on the night in question, but stated that he knew nothing about the prior robbery of Ferrell and testified that he did not remember being interviewed by the Wilmington Police about the alleged necklace robbery.9 Kason Wright testified:
[The Prosecutor]. Have you ever been there — or specific day[?] Have you ever been there around G&P?
A. Yes
Q. January 26th you think you may have been around there?
A. Yes.
Q. And on any day, January 26th, do you remember seeing Jamaien Monroe there?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember talking to Jamaien Monroe?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember Jamaien Monroe going and trying to rob someone?
A. No. I don't remember.10
In response to Kason Wright's answers, the State played a videotape (pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 3507) of Kason Wright being interviewed by Wilmington Police detectives on January 27, 2006 about the necklace robbery. Kason Wright testified that it was not him on the tape. During his interview with police, Kason Wright stated:
Wright: I was in — I was in Chinese store smoking a blunt. Gus was in G&P. Main Dane said that he likes the chains. I say man, but, cross, man.
Detective: Uh huh.
Wright: Supposed to be Muslim. Don't wear crosses.
Detective: Uh huh.
Wright: Uh. So, Main Dane going up there, try to get him.
Detective: Uh huh.
Wright: So, all you hear is help, help, help. Gus beating Main Dane up.
Detective: Do you go out there and help him?
Wright: No. Hell No.
Detective: What happened?
Wright: I left it alone. I walked back like I didn't see it.
Detective: But what happened? But what happened?
Wright: Nothing ain't happen. The chain. Um, I see them — I seen them pick up a chain, run. I seen about two, three, four cars deep pull up. Start beating Main Dane ass, chasing him up Market Street.11
Jonathan Wisher next testified at the Getz hearing, stating that he was with Ferrell on January 25, 2006, the night of the necklace robbery, and that he drove Ferrell and Ronald Wright to the deli:12
[The Prosecutor]. You say all four of you where in the car. So it's you, Ron Ron, Gus
A. Sal.
Q. — and Sal.
At some point on the 25th did you guys stop at the G&P deli?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where is that?
A. 28th and Market.
Q. What was your purpose in stopping there?
A. I guess they was trying to get something to eat, Ronald Wright and Gus.
Q. So what happened when you stopped and were going to the G&P.?
A. They stopped, pulled over, and parked.
Q. They parked in front of the G&P or around the corner?
A. On the side of G&P.
Q. Is G&P on Market?
A. Yes.
Q. So you parked around the...
To continue reading
Request your trial