65 A.3d 571 (Del. 2013)
On June 29, 2010, Defendant-Appellant Omari Clark drove his daughter and the daughter's mother, Kanisha Brooks, to the home of Vanessa and Wyatt Brower in Wilmington, Delaware.1 Brooks had begun dating Nigel Morris, who lived at that address. After leaving Brooks at the residence, Clark exchanged text messages with her to try to convince her to leave with him and later returned to see if she was still there.2
Vanessa answered the door and called for Brooks, who did not respond at first. As Clark was leaving, Vanessa told him Brooks was inside and would come out.3 Brooks met Clark in the street, and their argument escalated into a physical altercation. Morris, observing from a distance, went inside and returned with two uncles and Wyatt Brower.4 Wyatt told Clark he planned to call the police. Clark pushed Wyatt and knocked the phone from his hands. One of Morris's uncles hit Clark over the head with a chair.5
Clark fled up the block to his mother's house, armed himself with a knife, and returned to retrieve his car, which was still parked outside the Brower home.6 Morris and his uncles retreated into the house after seeing Clark holding the knife, and Clark drove away.7 Despite successfully retrieving his car, Clark drove back to the Brower residence. At trial, Clark claimed that he was concerned for his daughter, who remained inside the house.8 He got out of the car holding the knife. Shortly after Clark arrived, Wyatt left the house holding a walking stick, which Clark testified he thought was a baseball bat. Wyatt broke the walking stick against the porch steps and swung it at Clark several times. Clark responded by swinging his knife, which caused him to stab Wyatt below his rib cage.9
Wyatt bled to death from the wound. Police apprehended Clark several days later.10 A grand jury indicted Clark on first-degree murder and possession of a deadly weapon during commission of a felony. After a five-day trial, the trial judge instructed the jury on first-degree murder as well as the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder and manslaughter on two theories, but gave a justification instruction only for first-degree murder.11 The jury convicted Clark of manslaughter without specifying the theory on which it relied.12
Whether the trial judge improperly commented on the evidence when instructing the jury on the justification defense?13
The Delaware Constitution provides that judges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of fact but may state the questions of fact in issue and declare the law.14 Jury instructions must be construed as a whole to determine whether a trial judge commented on the evidence.15 To constitute plain error, the error must be so prejudicial to substantial rights that it jeopardizes the fairness and integrity of the trial process.16 The error must be a material defect apparent from the face of the record. It must also be basic, serious, and fundamental in character.17
No. Although the trial judge stated during the jury instructions on Murder in the Second Degree and Manslaughter that the Defendant acted recklessly and it is not justified in terms of those offenses, that sentence must be viewed in the context of the entire instruction.18 The immediately following statement informed the jury that if he acted justifiably then he was not reckless.19
In the context of the five-day trial, Clark was convicted of manslaughter.20 He presented evidence that he stabbed Wyatt below the rib cage while retrieving his daughter from the Brower residence.21 No reasonable juror would interpret the ambiguous sentence as the judge resolving the factual issue of whether Clark acted recklessly.22
The trial judge did not improperly comment on the evidence in violation of the Delaware Constitution.23
Whether a justification jury instruction is available for offenses that require a reckless mental state?24
Under 11 Del. C. § 461 a justification defense is available for all offenses.25 Section 470(a) provides that justification is unavailable in a prosecution for an offense for which recklessness suffices to establish culpability if the defendant is reckless in having the belief that force is necessary.26 The statute does not bar a justification instruction for all crimes requiring a reckless mental state. It bars the defense only when the defendant's belief itself is reckless.27 The definition of recklessness involving an unjustifiable risk does not preclude a separate justification instruction.28 Nothing in the Delaware Criminal Code limits the defense to crimes committed with an intentional or knowing mental state.29
Yes. In this case Clark presented evidence that he armed himself with a knife after being hit with a chair and returned to the Brower residence out of concern for his daughter who remained inside.30 He stabbed Wyatt after Wyatt swung a walking stick at him several times.31 This evidence supports that his belief in the need for force was not reckless.
Therefore the trial judge should have given the justification instruction for the reckless mental state offenses of second-degree murder and manslaughter rather than limiting it to first-degree murder.32
A justification jury instruction is available for offenses that require a reckless mental state and the trial judge erred by refusing to give one.33
Whether the evidence supported a justification instruction for the lesser-included offense of manslaughter based on intent to cause serious physical injury?34
Under the four-prong test from Henry v. State a trial judge should include a jury instruction for a lesser-included offense if the defendant makes a proper request.35 The lesser-included offense must contain some but not all elements of the charged offense.36 The differentiating elements must be in dispute.37 There must be some evidence that would allow a rational jury to acquit of the greater charge and convict of the lesser.38 Any evidence fairly tending to bear upon the lesser included offense satisfies the fourth prong even if the evidence is weak.39 Conflicting testimony regarding the element distinguishing the two offenses generally satisfies this standard.40
Yes. The manslaughter charge based on intent to cause serious physical injury differs from first-degree murder in the intent element, which was in dispute.41 Clark testified he never intended to kill Wyatt and only stabbed him once without calculating the location.42
This constitutes some evidence allowing a rational jury to convict of manslaughter based on intent to cause serious physical injury rather than first-degree murder.43 The grand jury indicted Clark on first-degree murder and the jury convicted him of manslaughter without specifying the theory.44 Therefore the trial judge erred by failing to instruct on justification for that charge as well.45
The evidence supported a justification instruction for the lesser-included offense of manslaughter based on intent to cause serious physical injury.46