State of Delaware v. Price.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ID 0804009949 ) ) v. MILLARD PRICE, Upon Defendant s Motion for Bill of Particulars. Denied. Submitted: Decided: October 16, 2009 November 6, 2009 ORDER Defendant Millard Price has requested that the State provide more specific answers than those presented in the State s bill of particulars, dated September 30, 2009. Defendant s request is denied. Defendant s motion for a bill of particulars contains two sets of questions about the alleged misdemeanors that allegedly took place prior to the murder and related events of April 9, 2008. One set of questions pertains to Count 25, Assault Third Degree, and the other pertains to Count 26, Offensive Touching. For each of the two counts, Defendant asked when did the alleged crime occur, where did it occur and when in relation to the murder did it occur. In its response, the State answered each question with more information than what is provided in the indictment. Nevertheless, Defendant seeks greater specificity. In response to Defendant s question, When did the alleged assault occur? the State responded between M arch 1, 2008 and April 9, 2008. Defendant objects to this answer because in a pre-trial brief, the State refers to the misdemeanors as occurring approximately two weeks prior to the alleged murder. These answers are not so different that the State must answer yet again. There is no requirement for the State to disclose the precise date where the date is not an essential element of the offense,1 and, in this case, the Court finds that the State s response to this question suffices. Other than his general request for greater specificity, Defendant does not object to any other responses or seek for further information. Having read the State s responses, the Court finds that they serve the purpose of a bill of particulars to provide notice supplemental to information contained in the indictment.2 That is exactly what the State s response does in this case. For all these reasons, Defendant s request for further responses to the motion for a bill of particulars is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Richard F. Stokes, Judge Original to Prothonotary cc: Paula T. Ryan, Esquire John W. Donahue, Esquire Stephanie A. Tsantes, Esquire John Daniello, Esquire Joseph A. Hurley, Esquire 1 State v. Bittenbender, 2001 WL 789633 (Del. Super.). 2 Lovett v. State, 516 A.2d 455, 467 (Del. 1986).
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.
