Summary
The Delaware Superior Court granted Andrew Williams’s motion to sever charges arising from three alleged sexual assaults. Applying Delaware Criminal Rules 8 and 14 and discussing Getz v. State, State v. Conaway, and State v. Boughner, the Court concluded that joinder created a risk of unfair prejudice, including propensity reasoning and confusion from inconsistent defenses.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether three sex-offense investigations were properly joined under Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 8.
- Whether joinder of the charges would prejudice Williams under Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 14 because the jury could cumulate the evidence, infer a general propensity to commit sex offenses, or be confused by Williams's differing defenses.
- Whether evidence of each alleged sexual assault would be admissible in a separate trial of the other alleged assaults to prove motive, intent, identity, modus operandi, or a common plan.
Holdings
- The three offenses were properly joined because they were of the same or similar character; however, proper joinder did not resolve whether the charges should be tried together.
- Severance was required because a joint trial created a substantial risk that the jury would cumulate the evidence, infer that Williams had a general criminal disposition to commit sex offenses, and be confused by the different defenses applicable to the three charges.
- The State could not justify a joint trial merely by characterizing the alleged assaults as evidence of motive, intent, modus operandi, identity, or common plan; repetition of similar sex offenses, without more, does not establish a plan or prove consent-related issues in another case.
Key quotations
“There are three types of prejudice that must be considered when multiple offenses have been joined in a single indictment: 1) the danger of cumulating the evidence of each charge and convicting on the basis of the aggregate of evidence and not the evidence of each charge independently, 2) inferring a general criminal disposition of the defendant and convicting on that basis instead of the evidence, and 3) the danger of confusion in cases where the defendant presents different defenses to the different charges and victims.” (at 5)
“It is not possible to distinguish the logic or holding in Conaway from the evidence proffered in this case.” (at 9)
“The Court finds that, following the holdings in Getz v. State and State v. Conaway, and consistent with Rule 14 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court must order severance of the cases for trial.” (at 9)
Factual background
The indictment consolidated three alleged sexual assaults at or associated with Williams's residence in Wilmington. The first allegation involved T.S. in May 2023; the second involved S.W. on March 16, 2024; and the third involved A.T. the following day. Williams gave materially different accounts and defenses: he denied knowing or meeting T.S., denied sexual activity with S.W. during the relevant period, and characterized his sexual relationship with A.T. as consensual despite her allegation of assault.
Procedural history
The State charged Williams in one indictment arising from three separate alleged sexual assaults involving three victims. The State opposed severance, arguing that the offenses were sufficiently similar and that evidence of each offense would be admissible in the trials of the others to show motive, intent, identity, or modus operandi. After briefing, argument, and supplemental submissions, the court granted Williams's motion to sever the cases for trial.
Remand instructions
The three cases are to be severed for trial. The opinion does not direct any further remand to another court.