Sykes v. State

Decision Date24 January 2008
Docket NumberNo. 519, 2006.,No. 556, 2006.,519, 2006.,556, 2006.
Citation953 A.2d 261
PartiesAmbrose L. SYKES, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Delaware

Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County, Cr. ID No. 0411008300.

Upon appeal from the Superior Court.

AFFIRMED.

Christopher D. Tease, Wilmington, DE and Thomas D. Donovan, Dover, DE, for appellant.

John Williams, Department of Justice, Dover, DE, for appellee.

Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices, constituting the court en banc.

STEELE, Chief Justice:

Ambrose L. Sykes, appellant, appeals his Superior Court convictions of two counts of Murder First Degree, two counts of Rape First Degree, and various other felony and misdemeanor offenses. Sykes was sentenced to death by lethal injection. Sykes makes six arguments on appeal. First, Sykes argues that the trial judge infringed his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when he erroneously instructed the jury during the guilt phase that allocution would follow closing arguments. Second, Sykes asserts that the State improperly used its peremptory challenges based on race and thereby denied his right to an impartial jury. Third, he contends that the trial judge erred by denying his motion for a change of venue. Fourth, Sykes argues that the trial judge erred when he failed to order a new trial after a witness improperly contacted two members of the jury after the guilt phase and before the penalty phase of his trial. Finally, Sykes argues that his death sentence should be set aside for two reasons: first, because death by lethal injection violates the Eight Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; and, second, because his death sentence is disproportionately severe compared to other similar cases. Because the cruel and unusual punishment argument was not properly raised before the trial judge and because Sykes has alternate means of asserting this claim in Superior Court, we do not consider that argument here. Because we find no error on the remaining issues, we AFFIRM.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 8, 2004, sixty-eight year old Virginia Trimnell was scheduled to fly from Washington, D.C. to Detroit to visit her daughter. When Trimnell did not arrive as scheduled, her daughter contacted the Dover Police Department. Officer Jeffrey Gott went to check on Trimnell. Gott testified that when he arrived at Trimnell's apartment, it was tidy and undisturbed and observed no signs of forced entry. He also testified that he saw two shopping bags sitting on the bed. However, he could not locate Trimnell's car or purse.

At approximately 3:30 a.m. on November 10, 2004, Dover Police Sergeant Timothy Mutter saw Trimnell's car traveling on Kings Highway in Dover. The driver, later identified as Sykes, got out of the vehicle, and Mutter asked him for his license and registration. Sykes initially complied but then fled after Mutter asked about Trimnell. The police could not apprehend Sykes that night.

Police found Sykes's fingerprints on a shovel and a rubber glove inside Trimnell's car. The police also found three gas cans and women's clothing that matched what others saw Trimnell wearing on the day she disappeared. In the trunk of the vehicle police found a large green suitcase with Trimnell's name and Trimnell's purse inside a green duffel bag. Police found Trimnell's body stuffed into the large green suitcase.

An autopsy indicated that Trimnell died by strangulation. A sexual assault kit detected sperm in Trimnell's vagina. The autopsy did not, however, reveal any defense wounds on Trimnell. DNA testing was conducted. Sykes's saliva reference sample was ultimately determined to match all sixteen loci from Trimnell's vaginal swab. Sykes's DNA also matched the sperm located on a comforter found in Trimnell's truck.

Police seized a computer during a search of Trimnell's apartment. An examination of that computer revealed that it had been used to access pornographic websites on November 7, 2004. Trimnell's credit cards had been used to access the website. That computer had not been previously used to visit similar websites. Police also seized two pornographic magazines and four computers from Sykes's mobile home. Files on two of those computers contained "similar images of adult pornography" to those found on Trimnell's computer. Additionally, police found a leather bag containing silver dollars in the home of Sykes's girlfriend, Jenny St. Jean. Trimnell's daughter later identified that bag as Trimnell's.

Trimnell's telephone records revealed that a cell phone registered to Sykes made three calls to her home on the morning of November 7, 2004. Sykes, a night shift restaurant custodian at Dover Downs, did not work on November 7, 2004. He quit this job on November 8, 2004 due to alleged transportation problems. After he quit his job, Dover Downs security cameras showed him leaving the parking lot on November 8, 2004 in Trimnell's car.

Police arrested Sykes on November 29, 2004 and the State later indicted him on two counts of Murder First Degree and other felony and misdemeanor charges. The State later re-indicted him and added two counts of Rape First Degree.

The case proceeded to trial on May 30, 2006. During jury selection, the State used four of its eight challenges to remove members of minority groups from the jury.1 After three of the first five, and again when four out of the first six, challenges had been exercised against minority venirepersons, Sykes raised a Batson challenge. The trial judge found that the prosecutor had offered a race-neutral reason for each of the peremptory challenges. Consequently, the trial judge determined that the State had discharged its burden of proof as required under Batson. The empaneled jury found Sykes guilty on all charges.

Following announcement of the verdict on June 27, 2006, the trial judge instructed the jury to return on June 29. During the evening of June 27, two of the jurors came into contact with St. Jean, Sykes's girlfriend, at a little league park. According to Juror No. 6, St. Jean approached him and asked if he could "donate to the Little League since you ruined my life today." Juror No. 9 also encountered St. Jean, but told her that "I can't talk to you" and walked away from her. No. 9 told the trial judge that St. Jean did not say anything to her. Both of the jurors notified the trial judge what had happened. St. Jean denied having any contact with the jurors. After interviewing both jurors, the trial judge concluded that No. 6 could remain fair and impartial and allowed him to remain on the jury. The trial judge dismissed No. 9 after she expressed her fear of St. Jean. At the penalty phase, the jury recommended a sentence of death by a unanimous vote. The trial judge sentenced Sykes to death by lethal injection. Sykes's automatic and direct appeals followed.

In our initial opinion, we found that the trial judge made an incomplete Batson analysis.2 We remanded to the trial judge to make factual findings regarding the presence or absence of discriminatory intent, i.e., to determine the totality of the circumstances regarding the challenges and to assess the credibility of the prosecutor's race neutral explanations.3 On remand, the trial judge concluded that the prosecutors had provided credible, plausible, and race-neutral reasons for each of the peremptory challenges that removed minority panelists from the jury and that the challenges were not a pretext for racial discrimination.4

ANALYSIS
1. Eighth Amendment Argument

Sykes argues for the first time on appeal that his death sentence should be commuted because death by lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the United States and Delaware Constitutions.5 He seeks a remand to the Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing to determine the impact Delaware's method of lethal injection may have on a defendant. This Court will not consider any question not fairly presented to the Superior Court unless the interests of justice so require.6

Section 4209(f) of the Delaware Criminal Code prescribes the method of carrying out a death sentence in Delaware.7 We have previously upheld the constitutionality of lethal injection as a form of execution.8 Further, it is presumed that the Department of Correction will properly perform its duties in carrying out an execution procedure.9

The United States Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari and heard argument to determine whether the combination three drug protocol used in executions by lethal injection violates the Eighth Amendment's proscription of "cruel and unusual punishment."10 However, Sykes did not present this issue to the trial judge. The United States Supreme Court has this issue under consideration. Their decision may control the issue irrespective of anything we might say about the Eighth Amendment today. Further, Sykes may seek post conviction relief after this mandate returns to the Superior Court on any claim under the Delaware Constitution about the propriety of the lethal injection procedure in Delaware. Accordingly, because Sykes still has several avenues available to protect his Eight Amendment and his Delaware constitutional rights, and because he did not properly raise Eight Amendment issues before the trial judge in the first instance, we decline to address those issues in this Opinion.

2. Fifth Amendment Violation

Sykes contends that the trial judge violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when he informed the jury before closing arguments during the guilt phase that Sykes would have an opportunity to allocute. The trial judge denied Sykes's motion for a mistrial. We review a trial judge's denial of a motion for a mistrial for abuse of discretion because the trial judge "is in the best position to assess the risk of any prejudice...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Cooke v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • July 24, 2014
    ...on appeal: 820 A.2d 342 (Del.2003) Name: Ambrose L. Sykes Criminal ID: 04011008300 County: Kent Sentence: Death Decision on appeal: 953 A.2d 261 (Del.2008) Name: Antonio L. Taylor Criminal ID: 9404018838 County: Kent Sentence: Life imprisonment Decision on appeal: 685 A.2d 349 (Del.1996) Na......
  • State v. Carr
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • July 25, 2014
    ...theories warranting venue change); State v. Sostre, 48 Conn.Supp. 82, 85, 830 A.2d 1212 (Super.Ct.2002) (same); Sykes v. State, 953 A.2d 261, 272 (Del.2008) (relief under venue statute may be satisfied under either presumed, actual prejudice theory); Noe v. State, 586 So.2d 371, 379 (Fla.Di......
  • Cooke v. State, Case No: 519, 2012
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • July 24, 2014
    ...Kent Death 820 A.2d 342 (Del. 2003) Name: Criminal ID: County: Sentence: Decision on appeal: Ambrose L. Sykes 04011008300 Kent Death 953 A.2d 261 (Del. 2008) Name: Criminal ID: County: Sentence: Decision on appeal: Antonio L. Taylor 9404018838 Kent Life imprisonment 685 A.2d 349 (Del. 1996)......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • November 4, 2009
    ... ... Decision on appeal: 636 A.2d 931 (Del.1994) ... Name: Ralph Swan ... Criminal ID: 0002004767A ... County: Kent ... Sentence: Death ... Decision on appeal: 820 A.2d 342 (Del.2003) ... Name: Ambrose L. Sykes ... Criminal ID: 04011008300 ... County: Kent ... Sentence: Death ... Decision on appeal: 953 A.2d 261 (Del.2008) ... Name: Antonio L. Taylor ... Criminal ID: 9404018838 ... County: Kent ... Sentence: Life ... Decision ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The Delaware Death Penalty: An Empirical Study
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 97-6, October 2012
    • October 1, 2012
    ...State, 918 A.2d 321 (Del. 2007), cert. denied , 550 U.S. 971 (2007) (2 defendants – Manley and Stevenson). Affirmed On Row Sykes v. State, 953 A.2d 261 (Del. 2008), cert. denied , 555 U.S. 969 (2008). Affirmed On Row Norman v. State, 976 A.2d 843 (Del. 2009), cert. denied , 130 S.Ct. 561 (2......
  • ICEBERG AHEAD: WHY COURTS SHOULD PRESUME BIAS IN CASES OF EXTRANEOUS JUROR CONTACTS.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 72 No. 2, December 2021
    • December 22, 2021
    ...movant to prove either identifiable prejudice or "egregious circumstances" meriting the presumption of prejudice (quoting Sykes v. State, 953 A.2d 261 (Del. (277.) State v. Needelman, 276 So. 3d 444, 447 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019) ("Once it is determined that extrinsic information was made ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT