State v. Wallace

• Citation: 59 Del. 123,214 A.2d 886
• Parties: , 59 Del. 123 The STATE of Delaware v. Joseph L. WALLACE and Edward S. Rovner.
• Decision Date: 03 May 1963
• Court: Superior Court of Delaware

Page 886

214 A.2d 886

9 Storey 123, 59 Del. 123

The STATE of Delaware v. Joseph L. WALLACE and Edward S. Rovner.

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.

May 3, 1963.

E. Norman Veasey and W. Laird Stabler, Jr., Deputy Attys. Gen., for the state.

Emmett J. Conte, Jr., Wilmington, for defendant, Joseph L. Wallace.

Gerald Z. Berkowitz, Wilmington, for defendant, Edward S. Rovner.

DUFFY, President Judge, charging the Jury:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the defendants, Joseph L. Wallace and Edward S. Rovner, are charged with six offenses. You will have with you in the Jury Room the indictment specifying these six offenses. Counts 1, 3, 4 and 6 charge offenses by the defendant Wallace; Counts 2, 3, 5 and 6 charge offenses by the defendant Rovner.

Specifically, the defendant Wallace is charged with: Solicitation of a Bribe, malfeasance in Office, and two counts of Conspiracy.

The defendant Rovner is charged with: Accomplice to Solicitation of a Bribe, Accomplice to Malfeasance in Office, and two counts of Conspiracy.

The defendants deny completely and entirely that they are guilty of the offenses which have been charged against them.

I have referred to the contentions of the parties. You must keep in mind that the Court states them as contentions or claims only. You must be guided solely by your own recollection of the evidence. This is so because, under our law, you are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts of the case, of the credibility of the witnesses, and of the weight and the value to be given to their testimony.

It is not proper for the Court to comment on the testimony; it is the Court's duty to instruct you on the law to be applied to the facts, as you find the facts.

First, I will consider the charges relating to bribery or solicitation of a bribe. The first three counts in the indictment refer to this subject.

Bribery is generally defined to be the receiving, or offering, of any undue reward by or to any person whose ordinary profession or business relates to the administration of public affairs, in order to influence his behavior in office, and to act contrary to the known rules of honesty and integrity. It is committed by any person in an official position who corruptly uses the power and interest of his place for rewards or promises. State v. Davis, 18 Del. 139, 2 Pennewill 139, 45 A. 394 (1899); 8 Am.Jur., Bribery, § 2.

Bribery requires a criminal intent; the intent must be to influence, corruptly, an official in the discharge of his duty. 8 Am.Jur., Bribery, § 6.

Count 1 of the indictment charges that the defendant Wallace solicited a bribe. Specifically, it is charged that in this County, from on or about October 1, 1961, to on or about April 5, 1962, he unlawfully solicited a bribe from Wilmington Renewal Associates, Inc., and its agents, Lester C. W. Harris, Jr., and Leon N. Weiner. It is charged that this was done personally and through an accomplice, the defendant Rovner, for the purpose of influencing his official favor with respect to a proposal submitted by Wilmington Renewal Associates in connection with Poplar Street Project A, and which was subject to action by the Wilmington City Council. Wallace was a Council member.

It is charged that the defendant, Wallace, solicited a bribe. Solicitation in the sense here used menas the asking, or enticing, or requesting of another to commit a crime--that is, in this case, to commit the crime of bribery. Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed.1957) p. 1564.

To constitute the crime of solicitation of a bribe, it is not necessary that the act be actually consummated, that is, that a bribe be received, or that the deendants profited thereby. It is sufficient if a bribe was actually solicited.

If you find that the defendant Wallace, while an elected member of the Wilmington City Council, either personally or through an accomplice, under the circumstances alleged in the indictment, State v. Seitz, 40 Del. 572, 1 Terry 572, 14 A.2d 710 (1940), solicited a bribe, as I have defined that crime to you, then your verdict should be, 'Guilty as to Count 1.'

On the other hand, if you do not so find, or if you are not so satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, then your verdict should be, 'Not Guilty'.

If you find the defendant Wallace not guilty as to this first count, then you must acquit both defendants of all remaining charges. On the other hand, if you find that the defendant Wallance is guilty as to Count 1, then you must go on and consider the remaining charges.

As to the defendant Rovner, under Count 2 of the indictment, he is charged with being an accomplice to solicitation of a bribe. Briefly, it is charged under this second count that the defendant Rovner unlawfully aided and abetted the defendant Wallace in soliciting the bribe which is referred to in the first count of the indictment.

There is a statute of this State, 11 Del.C. § 102(c), which provides as follows:

'Whoever aids, abets, procures, commands or counsels any other person to commit a crime or offense against the State is an accomplice and is guilty of the same crime or offense as the principal.'

If you find that the defendant Rovner did aid, or abet, the defendant Wallace in the commission of the crime of soliciting a bribe, as alleged in the indictment, then in that case your verdict should be, 'Guilty as to Count 2'.

On the other hand, if you do...