Tice v. State
624 A.2d 399 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A victim's character is not an essential element of a self-defense claim under D.R.E. 405(b). However, evidence of a victim's specific prior violent acts known to the defendant is admissible under D.R.E. 404(b) to prove the defendant's subjective state of mind and reasonable fear.
Facts:
- On September 8, 1991, Elmer E. Tice, Thomas Daniels, Ricky Tharp, and others were gathered in a kitchen.
- Daniels, the son of Tice's fiancée Mary McNatt, began verbally abusing his mother after she asked everyone to be quieter.
- Tice left the kitchen and returned shortly after with a rifle.
- Tice fired four shots at Daniels. The first shot missed, striking a table near Tharp. The subsequent three shots hit Daniels in the thigh, hip, and chest.
- As a result of the final shot, Daniels was rendered permanently paralyzed from the waist down.
- Tice fled the scene after the shooting.
- In the past, Daniels had physically assaulted Tice on multiple occasions, one of which required Tice to be hospitalized.
- Tice had also witnessed Daniels being violent towards his mother, Mary McNatt.
Procedural Posture:
- Elmer E. Tice was indicted and tried by a jury in the Superior Court on charges of assault, reckless endangering, and possession of a deadly weapon, among others.
- During the prosecution's case-in-chief, Tice's counsel sought to cross-examine the victim, Thomas Daniels, about Daniels' specific prior violent acts.
- The trial judge ruled that the request was premature and that the evidence was beyond the scope of the direct examination, but instructed the witnesses to remain available to be called by the defense.
- During the presentation of the defense's case, Tice testified about several instances of Daniels' prior violent conduct without objection from the State.
- The jury convicted Tice of Assault 1st Degree and several other charges.
- Tice appealed his convictions to the Delaware Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Delaware Rule of Evidence 405(b), is a victim's character for violence an essential element of a defendant's self-defense claim, thereby permitting proof through specific instances of the victim's prior conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, Justice.
No, a victim's character for violence is not an essential element of a self-defense claim under D.R.E. 405(b). The rule permitting evidence of specific instances of conduct applies only when character itself is a material fact determining the outcome, which is not the case in self-defense. The court reasoned that the essential element of self-defense is the defendant's subjective belief that force was necessary for protection, not whether the victim acted in conformity with a character trait of aggressiveness. However, the court clarified that this type of evidence is admissible under a different rule, D.R.E. 404(b), for the non-character purpose of establishing the defendant's state of mind—specifically, the defendant's fear of the victim. In Tice's case, he was not ultimately deprived of this evidence, as he was permitted to testify at length about Daniels' prior violent acts during the defense's portion of the trial. The trial court's initial ruling merely controlled the order of proof, which is within its discretion, and did not constitute a prejudicial error.
Analysis:
This decision provides a crucial clarification on the evidentiary rules governing self-defense claims. It distinguishes between using prior bad acts to prove a victim's general character (impermissible under D.R.E. 405(b) in this context) and using them to prove the defendant's subjective state of mind (permissible under D.R.E. 404(b)). This establishes a clear pathway for defendants to introduce relevant evidence of their fear without improperly putting the victim's character on trial. The ruling also reinforces the trial court's broad discretion in managing the order of proof, indicating that a delayed admission of evidence is not grounds for reversal if the evidence is ultimately presented to the jury.
