Murphy v. Delaware
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STANLEY MURPHY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § No. 361, 1999 § § Court Below: Family Court of the § State of Delaware in and for New § Castle County § Petition No. 9902049300 § File No. JN99-0527 § Submitted: May 16, 2000 Decided: May 24, 2000 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and BERGER, Justices. ORDER This 24th day of May 2000, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and oral argument, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant/appellant, Stanley Murphy* ( Murphy ), a juvenile, was tried on April 6, 1999 in Family Court on a charge of unlawful sexual contact second degree under 11 Del. C. § 768 and found delinquent. Murphy was subsequently sentenced to an indefinite period of incarceration suspended for one year of probation and required to register as a Tier II Sex Offender pursuant to this State s Sexual Offender Registration Statute, 11 Del. C. § 4121. * Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d), the name of the appellant is a pseudonym selected by the Court. (2) On appeal, Murphy challenges only the sexual registration requirement imposed by the trial court and not that court s finding of delinquency. Murphy s principal challenge is to the constitutionality of 11 Del. C. § 4121. He first contends that section 4121 is unconstitutional because it improperly chills an accused s right to a trial to determine his guilt or innocence. In furtherance of this argument, he notes that the statute provides the benefit of a hearing to contest sex offender registration for those juveniles who plead guilty, but neglects to provide the same process for those juveniles who exercise their right to a trial. See 11 Del. C. § 4121(c) & (d). Second, Murphy contends that even if this Court finds section 4121 to be constitutional on its face, the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him because it results in a denial of his right to procedural due process. Murphy also argues that the trial judge had a closed mind and abused her discretion in refusing to grant a hearing under 11 Del. C. § 4121(c). (3) We reject Murphy s arguments. The constitutionality of the sexual offender registration statute is implicitly controlled by this Court s decision in Coleman v. State, Del. Supr., 729 A.2d 847 (1999). There is no basis to conclude that juveniles should be exempt from the operation of the statute simply because the criminal process for juveniles is essentially confidential as required 2 by statute. Indeed, the statutory mandate of sexual registration would become meaningless without disclosure of the defendant s identity. (4) With respect to Murphy s due process claim, there is no evidence suggesting that a plea agreement was ever offered to Murphy, nor that he ever made an attempt to secure one. Thus, the record does not support his claim that his right to a trial was improperly chilled. Finally, we find no merit to Murphy s remaining contentions regarding the trial judge s alleged closed mind or any abuse of discretion. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: s/Joseph T. Walsh Justice 3
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.
