IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
FRANKLIN BLUNT, §
§ No. 305, 2014
Defendant Below- §
Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware in and
v. § for New Castle County
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § No. 1208016953
§
Plaintiff Below— §
Appellee. §
Submitted: March 4, 2015
Decided: March 24, 2015
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.
0 R D E R
On this 24lh day of March 2015, it appears to the Court that:
( 1) Defendant-Below/Appellant Franklin Blunt appeals from Superior Court
jury verdicts finding him guilty of two counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon
During the Commission of a Felony,l Assault in a Detention Facility,2 Attempted
Assault in the First Degree,3 and Promoting Prison Contraband.4 Blunt raises four
claims on appeal. First, Blunt contends that the State failed to prove that a wooden
shank was a “deadly weapon.” Second, he contends that there was insufficient
' 11 Del. C. § 1447.
2 11 Del. C. § 1254.
3 11 Del. C. §53l;see also 11 Del. C. §613.
4 11 Del. C. § 1256.
evidence to support a finding that he attempted to cause “serious physical injury”
when he attacked Officer Lance Green. Third, he contends that the State failed to
prove that a wooden shank was contraband because the State failed to prove it was
a “deadly weapon.” Finally, he contends that the State’s misconduct during closing
arguments requires that he be granted a new trial. We find no merit to Blunt’s appeal
and affirm.
(2) In August 2012, Officer Green, Officer Anil Verrna, Corporal Daniel
Barrett, and Sergeant Dorian George were on duty in Building 21 at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center. Sergeant George and Corporal Barrett were observing
the inmates from an isolated observation room known as a security “POD” while
Officers Green and Verma distributed lunch to the inmates. As the officers were
collecting empty lunch trays, Blunt informed Officer Green that he had not received
his lunch. Officers Green and Verma later returned to Blunt’s cell with a lunch tray.
At this time, Blunt was informed that the cell would need to be searched for other
lunch trays and that the inmates would have to secure themselves in the shower area.
Although Blunt’s cellmate complied with the officers’ order to exit the cell, Blunt
refused to do so and became aggressive.
(3) Based on his behavior, the officers ordered Blunt to turn around and
prepare to be handcuffed. As the officers were attempting to handcuff Blunt, he
pulled a shank5 from his waistband and proceeded to attack Officer Green. Despite
being sprayed with pepper spray, Blunt continued his attack and attempted to strike
Officer Green with the shank at least a dozen times as Officer Green attempted to
create distance between the two of them. Officer Green eventually tripped and fell
to the ground. While Officer Green regained his composure, he was struck in the rib
cage as he partially deflected one of Blunt’s numerous attempts to stab him with the
shank. Officer Green managed to pin Blunt’s right wrist to the floor and ordered him
to drop the shank. Blunt refused to comply and continued trying to free his hand in
order to stab Officer Green. Officer Green hit Blunt above the ear approximately
twelve times before Blunt became disoriented and dropped the shank.
(4) After an investigation, Blunt was charged with Attempted Murder in the
First Degree, Assault in a Detention Facility, two counts of Possession of a Deadly
Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, and Promoting Prison Contraband. At
trial, Officer Green, Coroporal Barrett, Sergeant George, and Lieutenant Baynard
testified for the State. The State also offered into evidence the shank used to strike
Officer Green, and Blunt’s statement to investigators, in which he referred to the
shank as a knife. Blunt did not file a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal nor did he
5 Lieutenant Stanley Baynard (“Lt Baynard”), the investigating officer, testified at trial that a
“[s]hank is any instrument filed down to a point and/or it has a blunt end used for protection and/or
injury.” Appellant’s Op. Br. App. at A52.
testify in his own defense.
(5) During closing arguments, the State made numerous references to Blunt’s
attempted strikes, but on two separate occasions incorrectly stated that Blunt had
stabbed Officer Green multiple times, when he in fact only stabbed him once.
Further, the State referred to Officer Green’s bruised ribs, which resulted from
Blunt’s partially deflected strike. Lastly, the State noted in its closing remarks that
Blunt himself had referred to the shank as a knife.
(6) In response, Blunt’s counsel argued that no evidence was offered that
would support a finding that Officer Green was stabbed more than once. Blunt also
argued that the shank was not a “deadly weapon.” On rebuttal, the State clarified that
its case was based on Blunt’s intent, and that “multiple blows were thrown”6 despite
Officer Green only being struck one time. Before the jury was charged, the State
requested that the lesser-included offense of Attempted Assault be included in the
jury instructions. The trial court granted the State’s request over defense counsel’s
objection. Thereafter, the jury found Blunt guilty of Attempted Assault, Assault in
a Detention Facility two counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the
Commission of a Felony, and Promoting Prison Contraband. This appeal followed.
(7) Blunt’s first three claims are based on grounds of insufficient evidence.
5 Appellant’s Op. Br. App. at A90.
In reviewing an insufficiency of evidence claim, we review the record to determine
“whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the State, could find [a] defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”7 “In doing
so, the Court does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence.”8
Blunt concedes, however, that these claims were not fairly presented to the trial court
in the proceedings below. As such, these claims will be reviewed for plain error.9
Under the plain error standard of review, “the error complained of must be so clearly
prejudicial to substantial rights so as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the
trial. The burden of persuasion is on the defendant to demonstrate that a forfeited
error is prejudicial.”'0
(8) Blunt first contends that the evidence presented at trial did not support a
finding that he used a “deadly weapon” when he attacked Officer Green. A “deadly
weapon” is defined as “a knife of any sort (other than an ordinary pocketknife carried
in a closed position), . . . or any ‘dangerous instrument’, . . . which is used, or
attempted to be used, to cause death or serious physical injury.”” A “dangerous
instrument” is defined as “any instrument, article or substance which, under the
7 Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d 1345, 1355 (Del. 1991).
8 Shipley v. State, 570 A.2d 1159, 1170 (Del. 1990).
9 Monroe v. State, 652 A.2d 560, 563 (Del. 1995) (“This Court may excuse a waiver . . . if it finds
that the trial court committed plain error requiring review in the interests of justice”).
'0 Swan v. State, 820 A.2d 342, 355 (Del. 2003) (internal citations omitted).
" 11 Del. C. §222(5).
circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is
readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury . . . 3’13
(9) We find no merit to Blunt’s first claim. Viewing the record in the light
most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find that Blunt used a “deadly
weapon” when he attacked Officer Green. Such a conclusion is supported by several
factors. First, the shank used to attack Officer Green was a piece of wood that Blunt
had filed down to a point. Second, Sergeant George and Corporal Barrett testified
that, after becoming agitated, Blunt attempted to strike Officer Green with the shank
multiple times. Third, Officer Green testified that he feared for his life while
defending Blunt’s repeated attempts to stab him with the wooden shank. Fourth,
Lieutenant Baynard testified that shanks are used for the purposes of protection and
to cause injury. Fifth, Blunt himself referred to the shank as a knife when explaining
to police why he attacked Officer Green. Finally, the State offered the actual shank
into evidence in order to allow thejury to examine its features, and determine whether
it constituted a “deadly weapon.” Based on this evidence, we find that a rational trier
of fact could conclude that the shank Blunt used to attack Officer Green was a
“deadly weapon.” Thus, Blunt’s first claim must fail.
(10) Next, Blunt contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient
'2 11 Del. C. §222(4).
to support a finding that he intended to cause “serious physical injury” when he
attacked Officer Green. 11 Del. C. § 222(26) defines “serious physical injury” as
“physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious and
prolonged disfigurement, prolonged impairment of health or prolonged loss or
impairment of the fimction of any bodily organ . . . .”'3
(1 1) In this case, a rational trier of fact could find that Blunt intended to cause
“serious physical injury” when he attacked Officer Green. Officer Green testified that
he feared for his life during the attack, and several witnesses to the attack testified
that Blunt attempted to strike Officer Green between twelve and twenty times.
Officer Green also testified that even after being subdued, Blunt continued his attack.
A rational juror could infer that if it was not for Officer Green’s deflection of Blunt’s
repeated strikes, Officer Green’s injuries would have been much more severe than the
bruised ribs that he suffered. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the State, ajury could reasonably determine that Blunt intended to cause “serious
physical injury” to Officer Green.
(1 2) In his final claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, Blunt contends
that the State failed to prove that he knowingly possessed prison contraband. We find
this claim wholly unpersuasive. Under 11 Del. C. § 1256, a defendant is guilty of a
'3 11 Del. C. {5 222(26).
felony for Promoting Prison Contraband when the alleged contraband is a deadly
weapon. '4 As previously discussed, a rational trier of fact could find that the wooden
shank was a “deadly weapon,” and thejury reasonably concluded so here. Further,
Lt. Baynard testified that shanks were used to cause injury and that their possession
was prohibited. As such, Blunt’s third claim must fail.
( 13) In his fourth claim, Blunt argues that the State’s reference to Blunt
stabbing Officer Green multiple times during closing arguments was a
misrepresentation of the evidence, and that the State’s reference to bruised ribs was
a misrepresentation of Officer Green’s injuries. Blunt contends that these statements
rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct and require that he be granted a new trial.
(14) Blunt concedes that his claim of prosecutorial misconduct was not
presented below and should be reviewed for plain error. Under a plain error standard
of review, “we [first] examine the record de novo to determine whether prosecutorial
misconduct occurred.“5 If there was prosecutorial misconduct, the misconduct “must
be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity
u|6
of the trial process.
(15) We find that the State’s conduct did not constitute prosecutorial
'4 11 Del. C. § 1256.
‘5 Baker v. State, 906 A.2d 139, 150 (Del. 2006).
'5 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1 100 (Del. 1986) (citing Dalton v. State, 452 A.2d 127, 146
(Del. 1982)).
misconduct and does not require the granting of a new trial. The State is free to
argue “legitimate inferences of the appellants’ guilt that flow from [the] evidence.”'7
But, the State may not “‘intentionally [] misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as
to the inferences it may draw.”"3 Here, Blunt has failed to show that the State
intentionally misstated evidence or misled thejury. Moreover, any misstatement by
the State was corrected on rebuttal, when the State clarified that Blunt attempted to
stab Officer Green over and over again. Additionally, the State’s reference to bruised
ribs cannot amount to misconduct because it was not a misstatement of the evidence.
Officer Green testified that his ribs were bruised after the altercation. For all of these
reasons, Blunt’s final claim must fail.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
"'—r
Justice
” Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 204 (Del. 1980).
‘3 Daniels v. State, 859 A.2d 1008, 101] (Del. 2004) (quoting Sexton v. State, 397 A.2d 540, 545
(Del. 1979)).