Background
During a fight outside a Dover High School football game, a police officer saw Kameron Scott fire a handgun into the air and then flee from approaching officers. Scott did not have a firearm when he was apprehended, but officers recovered one along the route of the pursuit.
At trial, the State introduced surveillance footage showing Scott in the parking lot before the fight with no weapon visible and body-camera footage later showing him holding a gun. A detective also read from his report that Scott had returned the gun to his waistband after firing it. The jury convicted Scott of carrying a concealed deadly weapon and several other offenses, although it acquitted him of riot. Scott did not move for a judgment of acquittal and challenged only the concealed-weapon conviction on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. Because Scott had not moved for a judgment of acquittal, the court reviewed his insufficient-evidence claim for plain error. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the court held that a rational juror could infer concealment by comparing footage in which Scott had no visible weapon with footage taken later in which he was holding a firearm.
The court rejected Scott’s theory that he might have obtained the gun after arriving in the parking lot, explaining that a possible alternative account consistent with innocence does not make the evidence legally insufficient. It also deemed waived Scott’s argument, raised for the first time in his reply brief, that the detective’s report was inadmissible. The trial court therefore did not plainly err by failing to acquit Scott sua sponte.
Key Takeaways
- Circumstantial video evidence can support a finding that a weapon was hidden from ordinary sight.
- A defendant’s plausible alternative explanation does not require reversal when the evidence permits a rational jury to find every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Failure to seek a judgment of acquittal at trial limits appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency to plain error.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Delaware prosecutors need not present direct testimony identifying the precise place from which a concealed weapon was drawn. A jury may infer concealment by comparing the defendant’s appearance before the weapon became visible with evidence showing the defendant holding it later.
The order also underscores two preservation rules for criminal appeals: defendants should move for a judgment of acquittal to preserve ordinary sufficiency review, and they generally must raise evidentiary arguments in their opening appellate brief.