State v. Williams

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
v. )
)
ANDREW WILLIAMS, ) C.A. No. 2403009628; 2403011045;
Defendant. ) 2403009214; 2403010609;
) 2403009314
)
)
)
)

Submitted: October 15, 2025
Decided: November 14, 2025

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Sever:
GRANTED.

Nichole Whetham Warner, Esquire, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Wilmington,
Delaware. Attorney for the State of Delaware.

Kevin P. Tray, Esquire, LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN P. TRAY, Wilmington, Delaware;
Natalie Woloshin, Esquire, COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN, Wilmington,
Delaware. Attorneys for Defendant.

BUTLER, R.J.
The defense has moved to sever the charges in this indictment, which

consolidates three separate sex offense investigations against the Defendant. The

issue has been fully brief, argued and supplemented by the State. After due

consideration, the Court grants the motion to sever.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

We begin with a chronological recitation of the events leading to the

indictment as alleged by the State. We note that the State places great weight on the

similarities in detail of the three sexual assaults. The State believes that specific

positions, behaviors and words used during the sex acts depict a modus operandi

showing both the identity of the Defendant and the victims’ nonconsent. We will

spare the reader other details, except to note that the assaults do indeed share

similarities.

Case #1 – Victim “T.S.”

On May 11, 2023, a woman identified as “T.S.” reported that the previous day,

she had come to Wilmington with a girlfriend to buy drugs. She ended up at the

Defendant’s house on Oakmont Drive and she and her friend spent the day there.

They fell asleep in Defendant’s living room. Defendant woke T.S. while her

2
girlfriend slept and directed her to an upstairs bedroom where they both ingested

drugs. This was followed by the Defendant’s sexual assault of T.S.

The next morning, T.S. woke her girlfriend. They departed the residence and

she promptly reported the rape. But during the interview process with the police,

she left the station, leading the police to conclude that she did not wish to cooperate

or pursue the matter further.

Case #2 – Victim “S.W.”

Some ten months later, the victim in Case #2, S.W., reported that she met the

Defendant near the Wilmington Riverfront on March 16, 2024. On this date, she had

a serious infection on her arm, and he helped her get to the Wilmington Hospital for

treatment. They left the hospital, walked around the city and ultimately ended up at

Defendant’s residence on Oakmont Drive in Wilmington. There, he offered her

fentanyl, which she accepted. He then sexually assaulted S.W.

S.W. escaped the residence when someone else came to the Oakmont Drive

residence to purchase drugs. She managed to get out, flagged down a stranger and

called 911.

Case #3 – Victim “A.T.”

Case #3 happened the day after Case #2. In this case, the victim knew the

Defendant and had known him for many years. They had previously shared drugs
3
together and had engaged in consensual sexual activity. On this day, she went to the

Defendant’s house, they smoked crack together and she was sexually assaulted by

the Defendant.

The Defendant’s Statements

Because the danger of unfair prejudice looms large in a joinder and severance

analysis, we are well served to understand not only the claims, but also the known

or likely defenses. Here, the Defendant made a lengthy statement to the police. In

the transcribed statement, the Defendant gave a different “explanation” for each of

the alleged assaults.

As to the 2023, Case #1, the Defendant told the police he never met the

complainant. He was not questioned further concerning this offense.

As to the first March 2024 case – Case #2 – the Defendant told police he has

known the complainant for some time, and she has previously been to his residence

and stayed there for a brief period when she was homeless. The Defendant told the

police he had consensual sex with S.W. in the previous year but that had been several

months previous when she stayed there.

He agreed that he escorted S.W. to the Wilmington Hospital for treatment of

her arm, but said they separated after her hospital visit. When confronted with

4
forensic evidence suggesting she had in fact been at the residence more recently, the

Defendant denied any sexual activity with her in March 2024.

As to the incident the next day – Case #3, the Defendant said A.T. was a

frequent sexual partner who took drugs when they had sex. He agreed they had

consensual sex in March and denied ever having non-consensual sex with A.T.,

expressing shock that she would level such a charge against him.

ANALYSIS

The general rule for joinder of offenses in a single indictment is spelled out in

Rule 8:

Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or
information in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged
are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or
transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together
or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. 1 0F

The defense here does not and cannot dispute that the three incidents joined

in the indictment are “of the same or similar character” and they were properly

indicted together. The question of severing them is dealt with in Rule 14. It provides

that:

If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of
offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such
joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separate

1
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 8.
5
trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever
other relief justice requires. 21F

While these words are easy enough to articulate, the unfair prejudice to be

avoided – as opposed to highly probative, reasonably related evidence of similar

character – is a good bit less so. This is particularly true in sex offense prosecutions,

where evidence of other sex offenses can easily give rise to a conclusion that the

defendant is simply a sex offender, liable to commit sex crimes against anyone

within his class of victims. 3 2F

There are three types of prejudice that must be considered when multiple

offenses have been joined in a single indictment: 1) the danger of cumulating the

evidence of each charge and convicting on the basis of the aggregate of evidence

and not the evidence of each charge independently, 2) inferring a general criminal

disposition of the defendant and convicting on that basis instead of the evidence, and

3) the danger of confusion in cases where the defendant presents different defenses

to the different charges and victims. 4 3F

2
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 14.
3
Indeed, Federal Rule of Evidence 413 specifically allows that in a trial for sexual assault,
evidence of the defendant’s commission of other sexual assaults shall be admitted. The federal
rule is thus an exception to the general prohibition on permitting “propensity evidence.”
4
State v. McKay, 382 A.2d 260, 262 (Del. Super. Ct. 1978); Weist v. State, 542 A.2d 1193, 1195
(Del. 1988).
6
The Boughner Case

The State “asks the Court to follow the reasoning in State v. Boughner, 5 where
4F

the Court considered severance of four separate and unrelated abuse victims.” 6 5F

Doing so is as good a place as any to begin our review.

Robert Boughner was charged in a seventeen-count indictment with having

sexual relations with four different minor boys. In each case, the defendant

befriended the children, bought them gifts, invited them into his residence and

eventually began sexually abusing them. The trial court denied the defendant’s

motion to sever fifteen of the counts, finding the charges were relevant to intent,

modus operandi and identity. 7 6F

However, the Court did sever one count relating to a victim who was fifteen

years old when he met the defendant. The victim alleged a single incident of sexual

abuse, occurring two years after they met, so he had reached the age of majority at

the time of the incident. The defendant claimed the sex was consensual. The Court

severed this count on the basis that it would be “highly prejudicial” for the defendant

to offer this separate and distinct defense. 8 Obviously, consent was not available to
7F

5
1995 WL 19200095 (Del. Super. July 13, 1995).
6
State’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. to Sever, ¶31.
7
Boughner, 1995 WL 19200095, at *4.
8
Id. at *6.
7
the defendant as to the remaining victims and the Court denied severance as to the

minors.

Thus, Boughner recognizes that severance may be necessary in cases where

evidence would be otherwise admissible to prove motive, intent or modus operandi

but the defendant presents a defense that is inconsistent with his defense to other

charges.

The Conaway Case

State v. Conaway is a thorough treatment of the question of joinder and

severance in the context of sex offenses in which consent is asserted. In Conaway,

the state charged that the defendant had “date raped” six women after initial

consensual encounters. As here, the “core question(s) for each case” was “whether

the alleged victim consented to sexual intercourse in that case.” 9 8F

One of the critical considerations in both Conaway and this case is the

admissibility of each offense in a separate trial of the others. 10 Analyzing this
9F

element of prejudice relies upon the Supreme Court’s six-part test articulated in Getz

v. State. 11 As in Conaway, the State argues that evidence of each rape would be
10F

9
State v. Conaway, 2019 WL 3431594, at *10 (Del. Super. July 30, 2019).
10
State’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. to Sever, ¶28. See Weist, 542 A.2d at 1195 n.3 (“[A] crucial factor
to be considered . . . should be whether the evidence of one crime would be admissible in the
trial of the other crime.”).
11
538 A.2d 726 (Del. 1988).
8
admissible in a trial of the others to show motive, intent and modus operandi. 12 But11F

the Conaway Court rejected similar arguments, quoting Getz: “no evidential purpose

is served by proof that the defendant committed other intentional acts of the same

type.” 13
12F

The Conaway Court also addressed the common plan or scheme exception:

“[W]hether a defendant raped others in other situation(s) is not relevant to whether

the particular alleged victim consented to sexual intercourse with the defendant.” 14 13F

Put another way, again quoting Getz, “[r]epetition is not, in itself, evidence of a plan

and other crimes of the sort with which he is charged cannot be admitted against the

defendant under that guise.” 15 14F

Finding that the proposed joint trial presented a likelihood that the jury would

use the evidence for one of the improper purposes above, the Conaway Court

concluded that “this is nothing but evidence of the defendant’s trait to rape being

introduced to prove that with regard to every other episode, defendant raped the

alleged victim.” 16 15F

12
State’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. to Sever, ¶30.
13
Conaway, 2019 WL 3431594, at *9 (quoting Getz, 538 A.2d at 733).
14
Id. at *10.
15
Id. at *9 (quoting Getz, 538 A.2d at 733).
16
Id. at *10.
9
It is not possible to distinguish the logic or holding in Conaway from the

evidence proffered in this case. The Court finds that, following the holdings in Getz

v. State and State v. Conaway, and consistent with Rule 14 of the Rules of Criminal

Procedure, the Court must order severance of the cases for trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Charles E. Butler
Charles E. Butler, Resident Judge

10