State of Delaware v. Ginegaw.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAW ARE V. SCOTT GINEGAW, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DEF. ID: 1009021947 ORDER On this 2nd day of March, 2011, upon consideration of the State s Motion for Reconsideration, the Defendant s Response to said motion, the transcript of the hearing and the record in this case, it appears that: 1) The Court referred a Motion for Bill of Particulars to Superior Court Commissioner Mark S. Vavala pursuant to 10 Del.C. ยง512(b) and Superior Court Rule 62 for proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. 2) The Commissioner entered an order granting the defendant s Motion for Bill of Particulars on January 31, 2011 upon concluding that under the particular circumstances presented in this case -- where the discovery did not provide any indication regarding the nature of the force or threat of force utilized 1 by the defendant to justify a charge of Robbery 2 nd Degree -- it was reasonable to require the State to supply a limited Bill of Particulars to address that issue.1 NOW THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review of the record in this action, and for reasons stated on the record by the Commissioner on January 31, 2011, The State s Motion for Reconsideration of Commissioner s Order is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Joseph R. Slights, III, Judge c: Prothonotary Original The Honorable Mark S. Vavala Matthew Frawley, Esquire Beth D. Savitz, Esquire 1 The Court notes that, in instances where discovery or other matters in the record (e.g. a preliminary hearing transcript) reveal a factual element of a charge, a bill of particulars may not be necessary. See State v. Goldborough, 2000 WL 706790 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 10, 2010). In other words, the mere fact that the indictment of a Robbery 2 nd charge alleges only that the defendant used or threatened the immediate use of force, standing alone, would not require that the indictment be supplemented by a bill of particulars. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
