Monroe v. State
Delaware Supreme Court
652 A.2d 560 (1995)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
The American Appliance Center was burglarized, and a number of video recording devices were stolen. The police determined that the burglar had entered the store by breaking the store’s plexiglass front door with a steel pipe, which was recovered at the scene. The police could not recover any fingerprints from the pipe but did recover a number of fingerprints from shards of plexiglass that remained around the broken door. Some of the prints from these plexiglass fragments were matched to Bobby Monroe (defendant). A search of Monroe’s house failed to turn up any of the stolen items, but Monroe was arrested and charged with burglary and felony theft. At trial, police officers were unable to state with certainty any specific information about the shards of plexiglass that Monroe’s prints were found on. There was no evidence as to whether he fingerprints were placed on the door prior to or during the forced entry. The fingerprints were the only evidence linking Monroe to the crime. Monroe was convicted and appealed. At appeal, Monroe alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Veasey, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
