Sheppard v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE NATHANIEL SHEPPARD, § § § § No. 61, 2001 § § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware in and § for Sussex County § Cr.A. Nos. IS00-07-0386 through § 0389 and IS00-07-0393 § Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. Submitted: September 17, 2001 Decided: September 27, 2001 Before WALSH, HOLLAND, and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 27th day of September 2001, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Nathaniel Sheppard ( Sheppard ), appeals his Superior Court conviction of certain drugs and weapons offenses arising out of his arrest on June 28, 2001. (2) Sheppard contends that his arrest was based on a stop sign violation observed by the police the previous day and was thus pretextual. He argues that the evidence seized during his arrest should have been suppressed. Sheppard also alleges error in the Superior Court permitting the State to reopen its presentation of evidence during a pretrial suppression hearing to recall a State s witness after closing arguments. (3) On careful review of the record, we conclude that neither claim of error has merit. Although there was a delay in arresting Sheppard for the stop sign violation, the officer who observed the violation had sufficient grounds for not making an immediate arrest, including the facts that the officer was out of his jurisdiction and operating in an undercover status. The police can secure a warrant for a traffic violation and execute that warrant at a later date, as occurred here. We agree with the Superior Court that the execution of the warrant and the subsequent seizure of the defendant s vehicle incident to the towing of the vehicle was not pretextual since it was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant. Tatman v. State, Del. Supr., 494 A.2d 1249 (1985). (4) With respect to Sheppard s claim that the Superior Court erred in permitting the State to reopen its case to present additional evidence, we review that claim under the standard of abuse of discretion. Under the circumstances, and in the absence of a clear showing of prejudice, we find no abuse of discretion. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: s/Joseph T. Walsh Justice 3
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.
