Taylor v. State
| Decision Date | 27 June 1983 |
| Citation | 464 A.2d 897 |
| Parties | Joseph TAYLOR, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. . Submitted on Briefs: |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Upon appeal from the Superior Court. Reversed.
Robert C. Wolhar, Jr. of Wolhar & Moore, Georgetown, for defendant below, appellant.
Gary A. Myers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Georgetown, for plaintiff below, appellee.
Before McNEILLY, HORSEY and CHRISTIE, JJ.
Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of two counts of Receiving Stolen Property in violation of 11 Del.C. § 851. 1 In this appeal defendant challenges the Superior Court's jury instructions which were taken from Delaware Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions 18M and 18N, arguing that the instructions amounted to plain error in that they permitted the jury to return a guilty verdict without requiring findings on all the elements necessary for criminal liability under § 851. We agree and reverse.
The clear language of § 851 and the Commentary to the Criminal Code make it clear that there are three essential elements to the crime of Receiving Stolen Property. They are that the defendant:
(1) intentionally receives, retains or disposes of property of another;
(2) with intent to deprive the owner of it or appropriate it;
(3) knowing that it had been acquired under circumstances amounting to theft, or believing that it had been so acquired.
See Sexton v. State, Del.Supr., 397 A.2d 540, 544 (1979); State v. Shahan, Del.Super., 335 A.2d 277 (1975). In the instant case the Trial Judge instructed the jury as follows:
So in order to find the defendant guilty of receiving stolen property, you must find that the following elements have been established beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that the defendant intentionally received, retained or disposed of property of another person; secondly, the defendant intended to deprive the owner of the property; or the defendant knew or believed that the property was acquired under circumstances amounting to theft.
I have instructed you that, as one element of the crime of receiving stolen property, you must find that the defendant knew or believed that the property was acquired under circumstances amounting to theft or, in the alternative, that he intended to deprive the owner of the property. (Emphasis added).
The above instructions allowed the jury to impose liability if the accused intentionally received, retained, or disposed of property of another person with intent to deprive the owner of it or to appropriate it or, alternatively, the accused intentionally received, retained or disposed of property knowing or believing that the property was acquired under circumstances amounting to theft. Under either of the above alternatives, liability would be found without the State having to establish an essential element of the crime. The first alternative lacks the requirement that the defendant knew or believed that the property had been acquired under circumstances amounting to theft. The second alternative allows a conviction without the State having to show the "intent to deprive the owner of it or appropriate it". Given this we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State
...to give the requested charge constituted reversible error. We find this contention to be without merit. In the case of Taylor v. State, Del.Supr., 464 A.2d 897, 899 (1983), this Court held that "[t]o assure a fair and impartial trial, a jury must be adequately informed by the Court ... [as ......
-
Mills v. State
...omitted).92 Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).93 Keyser v. State , 893 A.2d 956, 961 (Del. 2006).94 Taylor v. State , 464 A.2d 897, 899 (Del. 1983) ; see also Smith v. Horn , 120 F.3d 400, 415 (3d Cir. 1997) ("A jury instruction that omits or materially misdescribes an es......
-
Bullock v. State
...concept.") (citation omitted). 52. Del.Supr., 547 A.2d 114 (1988) 53. See id. at 118-20. 54. Id. at 120. See also Taylor v. State, Del. Supr., 464 A.2d 897, 899 (1983) ("Having found the instant instruction erroneous we must now determine whether it constitutes plain error since the defenda......
-
State v. Miller
...the essential elements of the offense constitutes reversible error. State v. Payne, 12 Conn.App. 408, 530 A.2d 1110 (1987); Taylor v. State, 464 A.2d 897 (Del.1983); Gardner v. State, 185 Ga.App. 184, 363 S.E.2d 843 (1987); People v. Price, 21 Mich.App. 694, 176 N.W.2d 426 (1970); State v. ......