Rita Carnevale v. State of Delaware - Assault Order

IN THE SU PERIOR C OUR T F OR THE ST A TE OF DELA W ARE RIT A CARNEV ALE, Defend ant - Appel lant, v. ST A TE OF DELA W ARE, A ppell ee.))))))))))) I.D. No. 240 9010523 ORDER This 2 nd day of M arch 2026, th e Court enters th e followin g Order: 1. On Sept ember 19, 2024, appr oxima tely a dozen sm all busine ss owner s atten ded a meetin g at Mrs. Rob ino’ s res taura nt on the west s ide of W il m ingto n to disc uss ways to boost busi ness in the loca l commun ity. 0F 1 All was well u ntil the meet ing c hair adj ourne d the mee tin g and aske d for a ny fina l rema rks from th e attendees. 1F 2 Defen dant Rita Car neval e appa rent ly fe lt that th is wo uld be a go od time to ann ounc e that her car had bee n hit by illega l immigra nts and that it was Joe Biden’ s fau lt. 2F 3 Seate d next t o Ca rnev ale, an a ttendee, Lani ce W ilson, att empte d to 1 App. to Appellee’ s Answering Br. [hereinaft er “A _”] at 41:12-42:10 (Court of Common Pleas Tr i a l Tr.). 2 A43:19 – A44:9. 3 A44:10-22.

2 call the mee ting to o rder as t his wa s not a pol itica l meeting and W ilson fel t that Carne vale was out of li ne. 3F 4 T his resulte d in both w omen ris ing fr om the ir chairs as other attende es se para ted t hem. 4F 5 W ilson l eft the r oom and we nt outside, only to real ize she had left her c ompu ter ba g inside the me eti ng. 5F 6 2. As W ilson we nt up the stair s to go b ack i nto t he resta urant to retr ieve her ba g, Car neva le m et her in the doorw ay and phy sicall y bumped shoul ders wit h her. F 7 W ilson tes tifie d that the bump was for ceful enough that “it s pun me around ” and “I lo st my bala nce.” 7F 8 The parti es exc hanged m ore w ords, wit h W i lson ca lling Carne vale raci st and Carne vale calling W ils on a Dem ocra t and wishing failu re on W ilso n’ s bus ine ss. 8F 9 W ilson te stif ied t hat th e inci dent lef t her “ shoc ked, embarrasse d, ” and “sup er concerned. ” 9F 10 3. Alex is Chike te stif ied for the prose cuti on. 10F 11 She wa s at the bus iness meet ing a nd a lthou gh s he kne w ne ithe r of the w omen inv olve d, she r ecalled 4 A45:18 – A46:4. 5 A46:20 – A47:7. 6 A4 8:8-9. 7 A48:13-23. 8 A49:1 -3. 9 A49:4-18. 10 A5 3:22-23. 11 A78:6.

3 Carne vale ’ s outsp oke n critic ism of immi gran ts and W ilso n’ s nega tive re acti on to Carne vale ’ s com plai nts. 1 F 12 Chike sa w the Defen dant bump W ilson “aggressi vely. ” 12F 13 4. Finall y, t he S tate called W ilmington P olice D epartm ent Corpora l Jenni fer Harmon, a membe r of the depa rtm ent’ s C ommun ity Enga geme nt Un it, w ho was in attenda nce at the mee ting. 13F 14 As th e meetin g was endi ng, Corpor a l Ha rmon left t o get bus ines s cards from her veh icle. 14F 15 She ret urned i n time to see Carn eva le “sho ulder bump” W ilson on the sta irway, much as the ot her two witne sse s had testi fied. 15F 16 5. Carne vale was ne xt to ta ke the stan d. 16F 17 Despi te bei ng in struc ted by t he Court t o testify f rom memo ry, she rea d dire ctly fr om notes s he br oug ht to the stan d. 17F 18 The Co urt admo nishe d tha t she wa s not pe rmit ted t o make a pre pare d speec h but coul d ref er to note s or an o utline only t o ref resh her r ecol lec tion a s neede d. 18F 19 The only su bstantia l discr epancy in Ca rnev ale ’ s ver sion of even ts from that of t he thre e S tate w itnesse s wa s that “La nice nud ged me w ith t he side or her arm, wit h her ar m into m y side. A nd to de fen d myse lf, I nudge d her arm o f f of m y body. ” 1 F 20 In 12 A8 1:6 – A82:23. 13 A84:22. 14 A108:8 – A109:21. 15 A 11 1:12-15. 16 A1 12:13-16. 17 A126:16. 18 A126:19 – A128:3; A130: 12 – A131:16. 19 A128:1-16. 20 A142:16-18.

4 Carne vale ’ s view, W ilson was the ini tial a ggres sor and had d elibe rate ly “se t up” Carne vale for t he of fensi ve to uchi ng cha rge. 20F 21 6. On the s econ d day of te stim ony, t he Cour t heard fr om Car nevale’ s othe r witne ss, W e n Ping W ang, thr ough a n inte rpre ter. 1F 22 Ms. W ang was a former customer of Car neva le’ s sma ll bus ines s and was havin g dinner at Mr s. Rabino ’ s Restaur an t duri ng the inc iden t. 22F 23 She testi fied t hat fro m her vanta ge po int “ five o r six m eters away, ” 23F 24 she saw W i lson nud ge Carne vale fir st, but she did n ot con side r the e ntire encou nter a “bi g dea l. ” 24F 25 7. After heari ng closi ng ar gument f rom bot h sides, the C ourt of Co mmo n Plea s made det aile d fin dings. 25F 26 First, it found t hat the St ate ha d met its bur den of prov ing tha t the Def endant inte ntional ly tou ched W ilso n wit h a part of he r bod y knowi ng that she w as thereb y like ly to ca use of fense or alar m. 26F 27 T his sat isfie d t he eleme nts of Of fensive T ouch ing un der 1 1 Del. C. §601. A s to whe ther the De fendant had sh own tha t she wa s justif ied in touc hing W ilson unde r the D elawa re law of self - 21 A14 3:3-4. 22 A160:14-16. 23 A162:13 – A163:3. 24 A175:14. 25 A177:14. 26 A206:17 – A215:12. 27 A212:20-22.

5 defe nse, th e Court deter mi ned tha t she had not. 27F 28 Th eref ore the Court, sitting witho ut a jury, fou nd Carne vale guilt y of offensive touchi ng. 28F 29 8. This r eci tati on of the conf licting fa cts is n eces sary to proper ly frame Defe nda nt’ s princ ipa l ar gument: that the e vidence w as i nsuf fici ent t o susta in the conv icti on. 9F 30 She c onte nds t hat the St ate’ s wit nesse s were not cr edible, t hat t he Court incorrec tly found proo f bey ond a r easona ble d oubt to s uppor t the of fensive touc hing c onvi ctio n, a nd tha t the Cour t im proper ly rejec ted her sel f - defe nse claim. 30F 31 9. Carne vale ar gues that there w as a reas onab le dou bt as to g uilt be cause there were t hree wit ness es for t he State a nd two wi tnes ses for the Defen se, inc luding herself. 31F 32 She all eges the State’ s witnes ses w ere “i nhere ntly in credib le” as the y faile d to iden tify t he vict im as the in itial a ggres sor. 32F 33 C onfl icts i n testim ony su ch as this are an issu e prope rly resolve d by the fa ct finde r. This i s indeed w hat fact fi nde rs do in vir tually a ll tri als on c onte sted fa cts. The Court o f Com mon Plea s proper ly weig hed th e test imon y and fo und inadeq uate s upport for Car neval e’ s self - defen se claim. 28 A214:19-22. 29 A215:8-10. 30 Appellant’ s Opening Br. at 2. 31 Id. 32 Id. at 17. 33 Id. a t 11.

6 10. Carne vale furthe r ar gues t hat t here was insuf ficie nt e vide nce t o supp ort a find ing t hat sh e acte d with r equ isite inte nt since “ the Sta te’ s witnes ses co uld not have pos sibly known wha t Ms. Ca rnevale was thinking.” 33F 34 G iven the backd rop o f the h ostil ities ex pre ssed ju st mome nts be fo re at the c omm unit y mee ting, th ere wa s certa inl y ev idenc e to suppor t a concl usio n that she inte nde d to touc h W ilson knowing it was likely t o cause offense or alarm. 1 1. Defe nda nt appe ars t o belie ve that one goo d shove dese rve s ano ther a nd, if W ilson s hove d her, she was justifie d un der the l aw to shov e her b ack. O ne can only im agine w here such a doc trine w ould u ltim atel y lead us. For tunately, that i s not the law of Del aw are, or a ny o ther juri sdic tion t he Cour t is a ware o f. The tria l judge hear d all the ev idenc e, weighe d the t estim ony, appl ied the law to the fact s and found Carneva le guilty. There was no error. 12. Carne vale ’ s othe r ar gume nt fares no be tter. She com plains t hat as a “pro se, seni or citize n liti gan t” she shoul d have been a llowed to ut ilize t he outlin e she pre pared for trial and in pre venting her fro m doing so, th e Cour t denie d her a “fair opp ortu nity t o pre sent a co here nt na rrati ve and vio late d her ri ght to due proce ss.” 34F 35 34 Id. at 16. 35 Id. at 18 -19.

7 13. Carne vale repre sented her self at tr ial. S he tes tified in he r def ense an d appro ach ed the wi tne ss stan d armed w ith num erou s pages, pro mpting the C ourt to cauti on her that sh e should t estif y in her own w ords an d not from a pr epare d spee ch. The Co urt did no t per mit her to re ad a verba tim speec h, but did prov ide he r numero us oppor tuni ties to refer to th e outli ne to refre sh her recolle ction as to wha t she wan ted to expl ain fr om the st and. 35F 36 She was permitt ed to stop a nd refer to her notes, after which she was dir ected to tu rn them ove r and testi fy from her mem ory. 36F 37 Th is was a perfe ctly r eas onable a pproa ch by t he tri al jud ge to ac comm odate th e Defe nda nt and kee p the trial f ocuse d on the iss ues at ha nd. 37F 38 14. The C ourt of C ommo n Pleas d id no t com mi t error, the trial was funda men tall y fair, and C arne vale w as n ot on the winn ing si de. T his Co urt, hav ing revie wed Defe ndant’ s entr eatie s in thi s app eal, find s no er ror warrant ing re versa l and t heref ore a f firm s the c onvic tion and sente nce of the C ourt of Comm on Ple as. IT IS S O ORDERED. /s/ Ch arle s E. Bu tler Char les E. But ler, Re sident Ju dge 36 A126:19 – A 128:3; A130: 12 – A131:16. 37 Id. 38 See gen erally D.R.E. 611 (“The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence. ”).

8 cc: Protho notary Rita Carnev ale Carly A. W asko, De puty Att orney G eneral