Horne v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KHALID HORNE, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 363, 2002 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID. No. 0107022453 Submitted: January 14, 2003 Decided: February 5, 2003 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 5th day of February 2003, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties it appears to the Court that: 1. In February 2002, a Superior Court jury convicted appellant, Khalid Horne of Trafficking in Cocaine,1 Possession With the Intent to Deliver a Narcotic Schedule II Controlled Substance (cocaine),2 Possession With Intent to Deliver a Non-Narcotic Schedule I Controlled Substance (MDMA, also known as Ecstasy ),3 Possession With Intent to Deliver a Non-Narcotic Schedule I 1 16 Del. C. 4753A(a)(2)(a). 16 Del. C. § 4751. 3 16 Del. C. § 4752. 2 Controlled Substance (marijuana),4 Possession of Drug Paraphernalia,5 and Resisting Arrest.6 In this appeal, Horne presents one claim: the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that the cocaine weighed in excess of 5 grams. 2. The standard of review in assessing an insufficiency of evidence claim is whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.7 3. To be convicted of Trafficking in Cocaine, a defendant must have possessed five or more grams of a mixture containing cocaine. Horne argues that the trial judge erred because of failing to properly consider the margin of error of the scale used to weigh the drugs. The State chemist testified he weighed the cocaine on three separate occasions. Each time the cocaine mixture weighed 5.01 grams just enough to receive the mandatory minimum of three years imprisonment. The State chemist also testified that: (i) the scale had a potential margin of error of 1% to 5%; (ii) the scale was working properly; and (iii) the scale is calibrated twice per year. 4. The trial judge concluded in a written order denying Horne s motion for judgment of acquittal that it was entirely unclear whether the error rate to which [the State chemist] referred represented the percentage of all the scale s 4 16 Del. C. § 4752. 16 Del. C. § 4771. 6 11 Del. C. § 1257. 7 Monroe v. State, 652 A.2d 560, 563 (Del. 1995). 5 readings which might be incorrect or the percentage or error (or variance) inherent in each individual reading. otherwise. 8 This was not clarified on cross-examination or The trial judge further concluded that defense counsel explored various means to question the accuracy of the State chemist s determination with respect to the weight of the cocaine during cross-examination and the jury was free to either accept or reject the chemist s testimony.9 We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial judge and conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury s conclusion that the cocaine mixture weighed in excess of 5 grams. Accordingly, the defendant s appeal is without merit. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: _/s/ Myron T. Steele_________________ Justice 8 9 Horne v. State, Del. Super., No. 0107022453, 2001, Slights, J. (March 4, 2001). Id.
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.
