Criminal Justice

This Act provides limited immunity from prosecution for persons who seek to report a sexual offense. Under this Act a person who is a victim or witness or otherwise seeks law enforcement assistance in relation to a sexual offense may not be charged, arrested, or prosecuted, or issued a civil citation for low-level crimes relating to drug or alcohol use or possession. This Act also provides that a person’s probation or pretrial release status may not be revoked or changed based on an incident for which the person would receive the limited immunity from prosecution provided under this statute.

This Act requires the State to preserve all biological evidence in its custody that is secured in relation to an investigation or prosecution of a crime, for the period of time that the crime remains unsolved or the period of time that a person convicted of the crime remains in custody, regardless of whether the person pleaded guilty. “Biological evidence” in this context includes any item that "contains" some kind of biological material that was collected as part of a criminal investigation or may reasonably be used to incriminate or exculpate any person for an offense. The State may destroy evidence that is likely to contain biological evidence before the expiration of those time periods if all of the following are true: (1) more than 5 years have elapsed since the criminal conviction became final and all appeals are exhausted; (2) the evidence is not in relation to an investigation or prosecution of a Class A to Class E felony; (3) no other provision of federal or state law requires the State to preserve the evidence; (4) the State sends certified delivery of written notice of its intent to destroy the evidence to certain specified recipients, including any person who remains in custody as a result of the criminal conviction, delinquency adjudication, or commitment related to the evidence; and (5) no person who has received such notice, within 180 days of receiving the notice, files a motion for testing of evidence under § 4504 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code or submits a written request for retention of the evidence. In addition, the State is not required to preserve physical evidence that is of a size, bulk, or physical character that makes retention impracticable, but in that case, the State must remove and preserve portions of the evidence that is likely to contain biological evidence related to the offense. If the State is called upon to produce biological evidence that cannot be located and whose preservation was required under the Act, then the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the failure to produce evidence was the result of intentional and willful destruction. If so, the court then must order a postconviction hearing, at which the court will presume that the results of the postconviction DNA testing would have been exculpatory to the petitioner, and impose other appropriate sanctions and order appropriate remedies. If the court determines that the failure to produce evidence was the result of negligence or non-willful destruction, it may provide the appropriate recourse, including ordering a postconviction hearing; at the hearing, presume that the results of the postconviction DNA testing would have been exculpatory to the petitioner; and impose other appropriate sanctions and order appropriate remedies. In addition, the Act requires the Delaware Police Accreditation Commission and Division of Forensic Science to study, promulgate, and implement procedures that effectuate the legislative intent of the Act regarding the proper preservation of biological evidence. The Act takes effect 2 years after its enactment into law. This Act differs from Senate Bill No. 214 in that it revises the definition of biological evidence to include evidence that is likely to contain biological material; requires the State to preserve evidence in a manner consistent with best practices at the time of collection, that prevents contamination, degradation, or reduction of any biological material contained on the evidence; provides that the State may not destroy evidence that is likely to include any biological evidence before the expiration of a certain time period or unless certain conditions are satisfied; and provides examples of remedies that the court may order if the court determines that a failure to produce evidence was the result of intentional and willful destruction or of negligence or non-willful destruction; and takes effect 2 years after enactment, rather than 30 days.

This Act codifies the Delaware State Police program that makes available a “blue envelope” for use by a person with a disability. The intent of this program is to increase safety for both officers and persons with a disability during a traffic stop. The envelope contains written information for officers regarding interacting with a person with a disability, as well as guidance for the person with a disability on safe interactions with law-enforcement during a traffic stop. The envelope is sized to be able to contain a driver’s license, motor vehicle registration card, and insurance identification card and other related documents.

This bill creates the crime of child abuse by a person in a position of trust, authority, or supervision. This crime may be a class A, B, C, E, or F felony depending on the degree of injury to the victim and whether the defendant acted intentionally, recklessly, or knowingly.

This resolution considers the increasingly egregious tactics, including lethal use of force, being used by agents of the Department of Homeland Security.

Last session, the General Assembly enacted the Richard "Mouse" Smith Compassionate Release Act (Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 10), which revised the process for sentence modifications. This Act makes a change to that Act. Specifically, Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 10 required the Department of Correction ("Department") to adopt regulations to implement the revised sentence modification process. The Department does not believe regulations are necessary for the Department to successfully implement the revised sentence modification process. Therefore, this Act authorizes the Department to adopt regulations, rather than requires it.

Last session, the General Assembly enacted the Richard "Mouse" Smith Compassionate Release Act (Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 10), which revised the process for sentence modifications. This Act makes a change to that Act. Specifically, Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 10 required the Department of Correction ("Department") to adopt regulations to implement the revised sentence modification process. The Department does not believe regulations are necessary for the Department to successfully implement the revised sentence modification process. Therefore, this Act authorizes the Department to adopt regulations, rather than requires it.

This Substitute for House Bill No. 252, like House Bill No. 252, makes a technical correction and decriminalizes the use or consumption of a personal use quantity of a controlled substance or counterfeit controlled substance in an area accessible to the public, instead making it a civil violation with a fine of up to $50 for a first offense and up to $100 for subsequent offenses. This Substitute differs from House Bill No. 252 in that it does not decriminalize the use of or consumption of a personal use quantity by individuals in moving vehicles. This Substitute does not change the penalty (up to a $200 fine, up to 5 days imprisonment, or both) for a person operating a moving vehicle while using a personal use quantity, but changes the penalty for passengers to a $100 fine with no possibility of prison time.

This Act changes the period of time for which relief may be granted under a lethal violence protective order from 1 year to 5 years. This Act also makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual.

This bill adopts an inmate mailbox rule similar to the federal inmate mailbox rule. If a pro se inmate files an appeal while incarcerated, the date of filing will be counted as the date that that the inmate gave the appeal to the DOC officials for mailing rather than the date that the Courts receive the appeal.