This Act adds virtual currency to the money laundering definition in the criminal code and gives the State legal authority to attempt to return virtual currency for victims. It also provides that if money cannot be returned to the victims of the crime, or are outside of the United States, it should be disposed of per order of the Superior Court.
This Act requires that when all or part of the tenant’s rent is paid from a state fund for reentry services, a landlord must assist the tenant in completing a discharge plan to attempt to provide a warm handoff before terminating the tenant’s lease. This Act also closes a loophole in existing law that allows unlicensed or uncertified operators of residential housing to claim exemption from the Residential Landlord-Tenant Code, including the procedural requirements for an eviction. Existing laws prohibit someone from losing their housing without notice because • A landlord must comply with the notice and judicial procedure under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Code, Part III, Title 25. • Licensed health care providers must provide discharge planning before an individual is required to leave a residential treatment program under § 1127, § 5161, and § 3004J of Title 16. • Certified recovery homes must make a reasonable effort to connect a resident with appropriate services when terminating the resident’s admission agreement under § 2206A of Title 16. Section 1 of this Act closes a loophole in current law that allows some landlords to claim their tenants are excluded under § 5102(1) of Title 25 from the protections required before eviction under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Code without being required to provide discharge planning or connecting the resident with appropriate services. This Act revises 3 of the exclusions by using the modern terms and where possible, the applicable licensing law for this State, to prevent housing providers from claiming exclusion from the Residential Landlord-Tenant Code even if the provider is not licensed or certified to provide services. This Act does not apply to or revise the exclusions to the Residential Landlord-Tenant Code under paragraphs (4) through (6) of § 5102 of Title 25, including the existing exclusion for certified recovery houses. Section 2 of this Act creates new requirements under § 5512A of Title 25 if all or part of a tenant’s rent is paid using money from a State reentry fund. Before or with the first payment, the person responsible for payments from the fund must provide the landlord with an explanation of these requirements, contact information, and the model discharge plan. The Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), in consultation with the Department of Justice (DOJ), must create a model discharge plan. Then, before terminating the tenant’s lease, the landlord must assist the individual in creating a discharge plan that includes shelter or housing and provide notice that the tenant’s lease is being terminated as follows: • To the person making rent payments from the fund. • If the landlord knows that the tenant is under the supervision of the Department of Correction, to the Department of Correction and the local law enforcement agency. If a landlord fails to comply with the discharge planning and notice requirements, the landlord is debarred from receiving payments from any State reentry fund for 1 year. If the landlord is receiving payments from a State reentry fund for any other tenants, those tenants are not responsible for the share of the rent that was paid by the fund and have the option to do any of the following: • Continue the tenancy without payments from the fund. If the tenant chooses to continue their tenancy, the amount of their rent becomes the tenant’s share of the rent, calculated by subtracting the amount paid by the fund from the total rent under the rental agreement. • Terminate the lease immediately. • Terminate the lease with 30 to 60 days notice. These requirements are enforceable by the Department of Justice and also by the Justice of the Peace Court, because the contents of an eviction complaint must include a brief statement of compliance with the requirements under § 5512A(c) and copies of all required notices. Section 3 of this Act is a technical clarification to clarify that “this Code” and “Landlord-Tenant Code” both refer to the Residential Landlord-Tenant Code under Part III of this title. Both “this Code” and “Landlord-Tenant Code” are used throughout Chapter 51 through Chapter 59 of Title 25 as abbreviations of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Code and under § 101 of Title 1, “this Code” could also refer to the entire Delaware Code. Section 4 of this Act makes the new requirements for reentry funds under § 5512A of Title 25 applicable to the rental of single rooms in owner-occupied buildings under § 5512 of Title 25. Section 4 also reorganizes the existing language in § 5512 because as 1 sentence, the current language is difficult to understand. This Act takes effect 6 months after enactment to provide time for DHSS and DOJ to develop the model discharge plan and for agencies, including the Department of Correction and local law enforcement agencies, to develop policies and procedures necessary to implement and respond to notification under these requirements. The new requirements under § 5512A of Title 25 apply to rental agreements entered into on or after the effective date of this Act. This Act also makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual. This Act is known as “The Grace Peterson Act”.
This House Joint Resolution directs the Judiciary to establish a Working Group to explore the feasibility of establishing a Housing Opportunity and Poverty Elimination (HOPE) Court Program in partnership with State agencies and community organizations and to provide recommendations for statewide implementation.
Like the original bill, Senate Substitute 1 for Senate Bill 314 modernizes the Rape Shield provisions in Title 11 of the Delaware Code, §§ 3508 and 3509 and provides that in any prosecution for any degree of rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, unlawful sexual penetration or unlawful sexual contact, any evidence that the complaining witness made a false accusation of unlawful sexual conduct against any person on another occasion is inadmissible unless it complies with the procedure set forth in § 3508 of Title 11, is relevant and is material to a fact in issue in the case, and the inflammatory or prejudicial nature of the evidence does not outweigh the probative value of the evidence. This Senate Substitute differs from the original in that it establishes a separate procedure under § 3508(b) of Title 11 to address prior false accusations of unlawful sexual conduct by the complaining witness, providing a distinct set of standards for handling the unique issues surrounding this type of evidence.
This Act makes it a crime to knowingly manufacture, sell, offer to sell, transfer, or possess a vehicle security circumvention device, or to aid or permit another to use a vehicle security circumvention device. This Act also requires individuals to report a lost or stolen vehicle security circumvention device to a law enforcement agency within 48 hours of becoming aware of the loss or theft. This Act does not include a special penalty as the Chapter already provides a penalty for misdemeanors, which includes a fine not less than $28.75 nor more than $115, or imprisonment not less than 30 days nor more than 90 days, or both. Additionally, for each subsequent offense the person shall be fined not less than $115 nor more than $230, or imprisoned not less than 90 days nor more than 6 months, or both. This Act requires a greater than majority vote for passage because § 28 of Article IV of the Delaware Constitution requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly to create a new crime within the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas, Family Court, or Justice of the Peace Court.
Current law prohibits persons subject to Family Court protective orders from purchasing or possessing deadly weapons, with some exceptions. This Act extends this prohibition to individuals with out-of-state protective orders as well.
This Senate Joint Resolution recognizes that missed court appearances create costs for the justice system and negative consequences for individuals, and that reminder notifications can reduce failure-to-appear rates. It directs the Delaware Judiciary to report on the cost, timeline, and requirements to build a court date reminder program for the Justice of the Peace Court and to expand it to the Court of Common Pleas, Family Court, and Superior Court and provides that DELJIS shall build the program if funding is appropriated.
Like House Bill No. 272, this Substitute creates the new crime of "interference with reproductive health services or exercise of religion”, which is based on a substantially similar federal law (18 U.S.C. § 248). The Superior Court is vested with jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions of this offense. This Substitute for House Bill No. 272 adds clarification by defining “place of worship”. This Substitute also replaces the phrase “discourage any person from obtaining or providing reproductive health services” with “seek to persuade any person with respect to a reproductive health choice or the provision of reproductive health services.” Finally, this Substitute adds language modeled on the similar federal law to clarify that nothing in this law (1) prohibits expressive conduct, including peaceful picketing or demonstration, that is protected under either the U.S. or Delaware Constitution, (2) creates new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or exercise clauses or limit any existing legal remedies for such interference, nor (3) provides exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to conduct prohibited under this law.
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 provides a remedy for convicted persons relating to changes in forensic scientific or technical information. Specifically, a convicted person may apply to the Superior Court for relief if certain forensic scientific information was not available to be offered by the convicted person prior to the conviction or if it undermines forensic scientific evidence that was presented at trial. The court must grant relief if (1) the convicted person files an application asserting that the relevant forensic evidence is currently available and was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence by the convicted person before or during trial or before the date of entry of a plea, (2) the application is accompanied by an affidavit from a forensic expert that satisfies certain requirements, and (3) the court determines that, had the evidence been presented at a trial, there is a reasonable likelihood that the result at trial would have been different or that the convicted person would not have been convicted. Once a petition for relief is filed, the Superior Court shall set a hearing on the petition, not later than 180 days after the petition was filed, and notify the petitioner and the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice may file a response to the petition within 90 days after its filing. After the hearing, if the court determines that the petitioner has failed to make a prima facie showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the court will dismiss the petition in a written opinion. However, if the court determines that the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the court may grant the petitioner discovery on matters relating to the forensic evidence used to obtain the conviction or sentence at issue and hold another hearing to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that, had the new evidence been presented at a trial, the convicted person would not have been convicted. If so, the court shall grant such relief as the court deems appropriate, which may include vacating the petitioner's conviction. For purposes of the Act, "convicted person" means a person who has received a verdict of guilty by the trier of fact, entered a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere that was accepted by the court, or received a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Like Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 58, Senate Substitute No. 3 differs from Senate Bill No. 58 in that (i) it clarifies that relevant forensic scientific evidence that may provide a basis for relief is not limited to evidence presented at trial, but rather includes evidence that was presented before trial, at trial, or before the date of entry of a plea; and (ii) it clarifies that the court must grant relief if the relevant criteria are satisfied. Like Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 58, Senate Substitute No. 3 differs from Senate Bill No. 58 in the following ways: • It replaces "application" with "petition," in order to maintain consistency in how a petition seeking relief under § 4505 of Title 11 is described. • It gives the court discretion to take certain actions if it finds that a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of the requirements for relief under § 4505 of Title 11. Under Senate Bill No. 58, the court would have been required to take certain actions. • It provides that if a petitioner has established entitlement to relief under § 4505 of Title 11, the court shall grant such relief as it deems appropriate, which may include vacating the petitioner's conviction. Under Senate Bill No. 58, the court would have been required to vacate the petitioner's conviction and grant the petitioner's motion for a new trial. In addition, Senate Substitute No. 3 differs from Senate Bill No. 58 in that it requires the application to be accompanied by an affidavit from a forensic expert and that it permits the Superior Court to hear a claim for relief later than 180 days after the petition if there is good cause for an extension.
