Kent v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Donovan Kent’s convictions for attempted rape, unlawful sexual contact, and continuous sexual abuse of a child. The court rejected his claims concerning the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the three-month element of continuous sexual abuse, jury instructions, amendment of the indictment, and the charged time frames. The court reviewed the unpreserved claims for plain error and found none.

Holdings

1. The Superior Court did not commit plain error by declining to enter a sua sponte judgment of acquittal on the continuous-sexual-abuse count because the evidence could permit a jury to infer that qualifying acts occurred over a period of at least three months.
2. The jury instructions did not constitute plain error because they accurately and clearly instructed the jury that the acts of sexual conduct had to occur over a period of not less than three months.
3. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the State to remove the word “Aunt’s” from one rape count and identify that count as occurring at S.A.’s residence.
4. The Superior Court did not commit plain error by failing sua sponte to enter judgments of acquittal on Counts I, II, and III because a rational jury could infer that the conduct at the aunt’s residence occurred within the charged period.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Superior Court committed plain error by failing sua sponte to enter a judgment of acquittal on the continuous-sexual-abuse conviction because the evidence did not establish three or more acts over a period of at least three months.
2. Whether the jury instructions on the three-month element of continuous sexual abuse were confusing or inconsistent with the indictment.
3. Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion or violated due process or double-jeopardy principles by permitting the State to amend one rape count after the close of evidence to change the charged location from S.A.’s aunt’s residence to S.A.’s residence.
4. Whether the Superior Court committed plain error by failing sua sponte to enter judgments of acquittal on the offenses charged at the aunt’s residence because the evidence did not establish that the conduct occurred within the indictment’s charged date range.

Disposition

affirmed