Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed Elton Pumphrey’s convictions for first-degree carjacking, first-degree robbery, and offensive touching. The Court rejected his due process, Brady, and improper-vouching challenges concerning pretrial identification procedures, alleged undisclosed evidence about another suspect, and comments made during his police interrogation. It affirmed the carjacking and robbery convictions but vacated the offensive-touching conviction because it was a lesser-included offense of first-degree robbery.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the pretrial photographic identification was impermissibly suggestive and created a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification in violation of due process.
- Whether the State violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose police notes and an email concerning a possible alternative suspect.
- Whether admission of a detective's comments on the video recording of Pumphrey's interrogation constituted impermissible vouching, and whether that claim was waived by defense counsel's express lack of objection.
- Whether the Offensive Touching conviction could stand when Offensive Touching was a lesser-included offense of Robbery in the First Degree.
Holdings
- The identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive and did not create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The trial court therefore properly admitted the identification evidence; in any event, any error would have been harmless given the overwhelming evidence.
- The State did not commit a Brady violation because Pumphrey failed to establish suppression of favorable material evidence and failed to show a reasonable probability that disclosure would have changed the outcome.
- Pumphrey waived his challenge to the detective's comments because defense counsel expressly stated that there was no objection to admission of the unredacted interrogation video.
- The Offensive Touching conviction was vacated because the State conceded that Offensive Touching was a lesser-included offense of Robbery in the First Degree.
Key quotations
“An identification procedure “will not pass constitutional muster where it is ‘so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.’”” (7)
“There are three components of a Brady violation: (1) evidence exists that is favorable to the accused, because it is either exculpatory or impeaching; (2) that evidence is suppressed by the State; and (3) its suppression prejudices the defendant.” (9)
“Based upon the record before us, we conclude that Pumphrey’s argument has been waived.” (13)
Factual background
Jeffrey Lessig gave Pumphrey a ride after encountering him at a manufactured-home property. According to the State, Pumphrey removed the car keys, threatened and grabbed Lessig, took the keys and cell phone, and drove away in Lessig's vehicle. Police developed Pumphrey as a suspect through witness information and conducted a six-photo lineup two days after the incident; Lessig and his grandson identified Pumphrey. Pumphrey admitted being at the property and driving and later abandoning the vehicle, but claimed those events occurred on a different day and with permission.
Procedural history
Pumphrey was convicted by a jury of Carjacking in the First Degree, Robbery in the First Degree, and Offensive Touching. The Superior Court denied his motion to exclude identification evidence, motion for judgment of acquittal, and motion for a new trial. Pumphrey appealed; the State's cross-appeal was later dismissed by stipulation. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the carjacking and robbery convictions and vacated the Offensive Touching conviction.