Background
Kaseem Drayton was charged after his then-girlfriend, Aniya Smith-Montgomery, reported that he had assaulted and strangled her and attempted to rape her during an argument. A forensic nurse observed injuries consistent with strangulation. Smith also gave police eight motion-activated camera clips from her living room, some of which showed Drayton strangling her and others showing him naked, removing her shirt, and holding a pillow over her face. The investigating officer did not inspect the camera or independently review its stored content.
A jury acquitted Drayton of first-degree unlawful sexual contact and second-degree unlawful imprisonment but convicted him of strangulation, menacing, and sexual harassment. On appeal, Drayton argued that the Superior Court should have given a missing-evidence instruction because police allowed Smith to select the clips she provided. He also challenged the admission of Smith’s recorded identification, body-camera footage of his arrest, a forensic nurse’s testimony about trauma-related memory effects, and repeated references to Smith as the “victim.”
The Court’s Holding
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. It held that a missing-evidence instruction was unwarranted because police had no reason at the time to believe that additional, potentially exculpatory clips existed. The investigating officer testified that the supplied videos appeared complete for the relevant period and aligned with the other evidence, so the police had no duty to seek additional recordings.
The court also rejected each evidentiary challenge. Smith’s recorded identification was relevant to connect Drayton with an alias she used; Drayton received the relief he requested when the trial court stopped the arrest video after his objection; and the forensic nurse’s education, training, and clinical experience adequately supported her testimony about trauma-related symptoms. The unobjected-to arrest footage and references to Smith as the “victim” did not constitute plain error. Because none of Drayton’s asserted errors had merit, his cumulative-error claim also failed.
Key Takeaways
- Police must collect and preserve evidence they have reason to believe may be exculpatory, but that duty does not extend to every item that might later prove useful to the defense.
- A complainant’s out-of-court identification may be admitted when it materially helps establish identity, even if the complainant also identifies the defendant at trial.
- Although courts caution against repeatedly calling a complaining witness the “victim” when the occurrence or criminal nature of the conduct is disputed, the unobjected-to references here did not satisfy Delaware’s demanding plain-error standard.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that a missing-evidence instruction requires more than speculation that additional favorable material might have existed. The relevant question is whether police had reason at the time to believe specific evidence was potentially exculpatory and nevertheless failed to collect or preserve it.
The ruling also underscores the importance of contemporaneous objections. Because Drayton did not object to portions of the arrest footage or to the repeated use of “victim,” those claims received only plain-error review, even though the court expressly declined to endorse repeated use of that term where the alleged conduct remains disputed.