IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY CORNELIA MADDREY, Petitioner, v. C.A. No. 06A-09-003 WCC ARBOR MANAGEMENT, D/B/A COMPTON TOWNE ASSOC. LP, Respondent. Submitted: July 3, 2007 Decided: October 26, 2007 ORDER Upon Consideration of the Petitioner s Complaint for Writ of Certiorari - GRANTED. Decision of the Justice of the Peace Court - AFFIRMED. Eric M. Davis, Esquire, and Mark L. Desgrosseilliers, Esquire, One Rodney Square, P.O. Box 636, Wilmington, DE 19899. Attorneys for Petitioner, Cornelia Maddrey. Deborah I. Gottschalk, Esquire, Community Legal Aid Society, Inc., 100 West 10 th Street, Suite 801, Wilmington, DE 19801. Attorney for Petitioner, Cornelia Maddrey. Michael P. Morton, Esquire, Michael P. Morton, P.A., 1203 North Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. Attorney for Respondent, Arbor Management, d/b/a Compton Towne Assoc., LP. CARPENTER, J.
Before this Court is Cornelia Maddrey s ( Petitioner Complaint for a Writ of Certiorari, seeking a review and reversal of an Eviction Order from the Justice of the Peace Court Number 13. Upon consideration of the Petitioner s Complaint for a Writ of Certiorari, it appears that: 1. Ms. Maddrey rented a unit from Respondents Compton Towne Assoc., LP ( Compton from March 2003 until November 2006. During that time Ms. Maddrey s grandson, Qy-Mere Maddrey, was a member of the household. 2. In a letter dated March 28, 2006, Compton informed Ms. Maddrey that her rental agreement was terminated for cause, namely that her grandson and an accomplice were wanted in connection with a shooting in the vicinity of the rental complex, violating a provision of Ms. Maddrey s rental agreement. 3. On April 13, 2006, Respondents filed a complaint for summary possession against Ms. Maddrey in the Justice of the Peace Court. A trial was held and an initial judgment was entered against Ms. Maddrey, who thereafter requested a trial de novo before a three judge panel pursuant to Section 5717(d of Title 25 of the Delaware Code. The panel issued a judgment for possession in favor of Compton on October 6, 2006. 2
4. In order to obtain certiorari review, the judgment below must be final and there must be no other basis available for review. 1 Review on certiorari, however, is not the same as review on appeal. Certiorari is on the record and the Superior Court may not weigh evidence or review the lower tribunal s factual findings.... the reviewing court considers the record before the lower tribunal to determine whether it (i exceeded its jurisdiction; (ii committed errors of law; or (iii proceeded irregularly. 2 5. Ms. Maddrey s complaint for certiorari before this Court is centered around the Justice of the Peace Court s decision to admit a private investigator s report. The Petitioner is claiming that the report is hearsay and did not meet any hearsay exception and thus was improperly admitted into evidence. 3 Because Petitioner asserts that admission of the report is an error of law, it meets the criteria for certiorari review. 6. While the Court appreciates that with the volume of pro se litigation within the Justice of the Peace Courts that some liberty and discretion must be given to their 1 In re Butler, 609 A.2d 1080, 1081 (Del. 1992 2 Reise v. Board of Building Appeals of the City of Newark, 746 A.2d 271, 274 (Del. 2000(citing Butler, 609 A.2d at 1081-82. 3 The report at issue was prepared by Mr. O Rourke, a private investigator hired by Compton to do a public record search and prepare a summary of the arrest records of Mr. Maddrey, Petitioner s grandson, and his accomplice, Mr. White. 3
judges in strictly requiring compliance with the rules of evidence, 4 it is important to note that the Delaware Rules of Evidence apply in the Justice of the Peace Court as they would in any other court of this State. 5 At the trial de novo, the three-judge panel denied Ms. Maddrey s motion in limine to exclude Mr. O Rourke s report on the ground that it met the public record exception to the hearsay rule and was thus admissible. 6 The exception allows admission of records, reports, statements or data compilations, in any form, of a public office or agency setting forth its regularly conducted and regularly recorded activities... 7 7. To appropriately consider this issue, it is important to appreciate the exact nature of the report prepared by Mr. O Rourke. First, the report had attached to it copies of docket sheets or documents filed in cases that were in the Superior Court, the Court of Common Pleas and Family Court. The docket sheets were obtained by 4 The Court notes that in this matter both parties were represented by counsel. 5 D.R.E. 1101(a. 6 We considered the information as a public record, and that the information contained therein would be available and accessible to the public.... we do know as an operation of the Court, that an individual or the media can come in asking for a specific case and receive absolutely the whole warrant... which would contain all the information about the arrest and probable cause information and charge information. Transcript of Tape of Arbor Management v. Maddrey, Del. J.P., C.A. No. J0604062313 at 16 (September 21, 2006. 7 D.R.E. 803(8. 4
accessing the JIC 8 information system using a terminal in the Prothonotary s office that is specifically designated to allow public access. The docket sheets reflect the activity of regularly conducted business in those Courts and as such would meet the public record exception to the hearsay rule. Also included in the attachments to Mr. O Rourke s report were, for some cases, sentencing and plea documents. These are the types of documents that are regularly utilized by the Court and would be part of the Court s file and available to the public. As such, they too would be admissible pursuant to Delaware Rule of Evidence 803(8. Therefore, the Court first finds that the attachments to the investigator s report are all public records with an independent basis for admission. While clearly the better practice would have been to obtain certified copies of the documents, a practice the Court would strongly urge in future matters, the rule does not require certification for admission nor is there a claim that the source of the information reflects a lack of trustworthiness. In addition, the testimony of Mr. O Rourke is sufficient to meet the admissibility requirement under Rule 1005. 9 8 Judicial Information Center. 9 The contents of an official record, or of a document authorized to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed, including data compilations in any form, otherwise admissible, may be proved by copy, certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902 or testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. D.R.E. 1005. 5
8. The remaining contents of Mr. O Rourke s report are simply a summary of what is contained in the Court records. Each entry is supported by either a docket sheet or other court documents and the report does not reflect an independent analysis or interpretation of the documents by the investigator. It simply lists the case, its present status and the scheduled court events. While it would be difficult to find that the report would meet the summary requirements of Rule 1006, 10 the Court finds its introduction as an exhibit to be harmless as it simply presented the information retrieved from the Court system in a more readable and convenient format. 9. As a result, this Court finds the Justice of the Peace Court properly applied the Rules of Evidence and was allowed to consider this information in deciding whether Compton proved a violation of the lease agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. The Justice of the Peace Court s decision that the Respondent met their burden is a factual finding not reviewable by a Writ of Certiorari and thus will not be addressed by the Court. 10. Finally, the Court notes that there is at least one decision of this Court which would reflect that this matter should have been filed in the Court of Common 10 The contents of voluminous writings, recordings or photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary or calculation. The originals, or duplicates, shall be made available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court. D.R.E. 1006. 6
Pleas. 11 While the Court has taken the liberty of addressing this petition to avoid the additional waste of judicial resources, the parties should note this requirement and comply with this Court s ruling in the filing of future writs of certiorari in landlord - tenant matters. WHEREFORE, the Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and the decision of the Justice of the Peace Court is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Honorable William C. Carpenter, Jr. 11 Chelsea on the Square Apartments v. Gillespie 2007 WL 625365 (Del. Super.. 7