[DOWNLOAD] "Walter Feddiman v. State Delaware" by Supreme Court of Delaware ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Walter Feddiman v. State Delaware
- Author : Supreme Court of Delaware
- Release Date : January 22, 1989
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 75 KB
Description
The defendant-appellant, Walter Thomas Feddiman ("Feddiman"), was tried before a jury in the Superior Court, in and for Sussex County, on April 13 and 14, 1988. The charges against Feddiman were set forth in a twelve-count indictment. Feddiman was convicted of Reckless Endangering in the Second Degree 1; Assault in the Third Degree, Kidnapping in the First Degree, Reckless Endangering in the First Degree 2, and eight counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree. Feddiman received nine life sentences, one for each conviction of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree, and one life sentence for the conviction of Kidnapping in the First Degree. He was also sentenced to be imprisoned for periods of ten years for Reckless Endangering in the First Degree, one year for Assault in the Third Degree, and one year for Reckless Endangering in the Second Degree. All of the sentences were to be served by Feddiman consecutively. Feddiman was convicted as a result of actions which occurred when he knocked the victim off of her bicycle and took her away in his automobile to two separate locations. During the course of transporting the victim, and at each location, Feddiman forced the victim to engage in various acts of sexual intercourse. In this appeal, Feddiman challenges his convictions on several grounds. He contends that: 1) there was error in the jury selection process because the voir dire questions did not sufficiently address the issue of racial prejudice; 2) the State allegedly used peremptory challenges improperly to eliminare black people from the jury; 3) the Superior Court erred when it declined to grant Feddiman's motion to dismiss various counts of unlawful sexual intercourse on the grounds of multiplicity; 4) the Superior Court erred in allowing the State to distribuye twelve copies of a transcript of his tape-recorded statement to the jury, without admitting the transcript into evidence; and 5) the Superior Court erred in not giving an instruction to the jury, as requested by his defense counsel, which distinguiste a "separate" act of unlawful sexual intercourse from a "continuing" act of unlawful sexual intercourse.