Brown v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DIONNE BROWN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 251, 2001 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. A. No. IN00-01-1729 ID# 0001003655 Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 10, 2001 Before WALSH, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 10th day of December, 2001, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears that: 1. This is an appeal from a conviction in the Superior Court. The appellant, Dionne Brown, contends that the Superior Court erred as a matter of law in declining to grant her motion for a judgment of acquittal. 2. Brown argues that the State presented insufficient evidence in its case in chief to submit her robbery charge to a jury. This Court reviews denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo and determines whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.1 3. Brown relies on this Court s decision in Bland v. State.2 In Bland, this Court found that while juries have the power to convict based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony, the trial judge retains the power to remove the case from jury consideration where there is an irreconcilable conflict in the State s case concerning a defendant s guilt.3 4. There is no irreconcilable conflict in Brown s case. While the accomplice s trial testimony contradicted earlier statements to the police, her testimony was not the only evidence available to the jury. The jury also heard the victim s 911 tape and Brown testified. In addition, there was no dispute that Brown was aware that force was used to obtain the coat and that she drove away from the scene of the crime. 5. The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and responsible for resolving conflicts in the testimony.4 As stated by the trial judge, a reasonable jury could have discredited some or all of the testimony of both Brown and Coverdale [the accomplice] and relied solely on the 911 tape to convict Brown. The State presented sufficient evidence in its case in chief for a jury to 1 Seward v. State, Del. Supr., 723 A.2d 365, 369 (1999). Del. Supr., 263 A.2d 286 (1970). 3 Id. at 288. 2 2 consider whether and to conclude ultimately that Brown was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the trial judge appropriately denied her motion for a judgment of acquittal. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele___________________ Justice 4 Tyre v. State, Del. Supr., 412 A.2d 326, 330 (1980). 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.
