Manlove v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE FLOYD E. MANLOVE, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 215, 2004 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County ID No. 0308021197 Submitted: November 17, 2004 Decided: January 19, 2005 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 19th day of January 2005, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Floyd E. Manlove, appeals his convictions, following a jury trial in the Superior Court, of trafficking in cocaine, possession with the intent to deliver cocaine, possession of marijuana and maintaining a dwelling for purposes of keeping a controlled substance. He argues that the trial court erred, as a matter of law, in denying his request for a jury instruction indicating that mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to find guilt. We conclude that a mere presence jury instruction was not required in this case. Accordingly, we affirm. (2) Prior to his arrest, the Wilmington Police Department received a reliable tip from an informant that the defendant was selling crack cocaine out of his apartment located in Wilmington, Delaware. As a result, the police began to monitor activity at the defendant s apartment. During this surveillance, the police observed a woman meeting with the defendant outside the apartment. The defendant then reentered the apartment, only to reemerge a short time later to meet with the woman outside the apartment. The woman left on foot and was later stopped by the police carrying crack cocaine. (3) The police then obtained and executed a search warrant for the defendant s apartment. Upon entering the apartment, the police encountered the defendant s brother, Ernest Manlove, who fled out the back door where he was immediately apprehended by police posted at the rear of the building. The police found the defendant located in the apartment s bathroom. Once the defendant and other persons were secured, the police utilized a drug trained police dog to search the apartment. As a result of this search, the police located crack cocaine behind the plumbing access panels located in the hallway outside the apartment s bathroom as well as marijuana in a dresser located in one of the apartment s two bedrooms. 2 (4) The standard of review for a denial of a requested jury instruction is de novo. 1 The defendant maintains that he was entitled to the mere presence jury instruction because it was a correct statement of the law2 given the evidence in the record that there were two people in the apartment when the search warrant was executed (one of whom fled the scene), other individuals had access to the apartment on a regular basis and the drugs were not found on his person. However, a mere presence jury instruction was not required in view of all the other instructions given in this case. The trial court instructed the jury as to the defendant s presumption of innocence and the State s requirement to prove each and every element of the crimes charged.3 The jury instructions as a whole clearly conveyed that more than the defendant s mere presence in the apartment was required to prove his guilt. The trial court s refusal to provide a mere presence jury instruction did not constitute reversible error under the facts of this case. 1 Ayers v. State, 844 A.2d 304, 309 (Del. 2004) (citing Yocum v. State, 777 A.2d 782, 784 (Del. 2001)). 2 Floray v. State, 720 A.2d 1132, 1138 (Del. 1998) (holding that while a defendant does not have a right to a particular jury instruction he does have an unqualified right to a correct statement of the substance of the law). 3 Hopewell v. State, 712 A.2d 88, 95-96 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1998), overruled on other grounds, Fleming v. State, 818 A.2d 117 (Md. 2003). 3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS SO ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 4 oc: xc: Clerk (orig. +3) Hon. John E. Babiarz, Jr. Edmund M. Hillis, Esq. Timothy J. Donovan, Jr. Justices (8) D. Collins P. Naylor Law Clerk File 5
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.
