Boyce v. State: Eliminating Separate “Mere Presence” Jury Instructions Where Instructions Suffice

Introduction

This commentary examines the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Boyce v. State, 2025 WL ___ (Del. May 15, 2025). Davine Boyce was arrested after Wilmington police observed him manipulating his waistband in a manner consistent with concealing a firearm, then eluding officers, and ultimately being found near a discarded handgun hidden next to trash cans. Charged with Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (PFBPP) and Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon (CCDW), Boyce was convicted by a Superior Court jury and appealed the refusal to give his requested “mere presence” jury instruction.

The key issue is whether a standalone “mere presence” instruction is required whenever a defendant contends that mere proximity to contraband or a crime scene cannot sustain conviction, or whether the jury charge as a whole may adequately convey that “more than presence” is needed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Delaware unanimously affirmed. It reaffirmed that a defendant is entitled to a correct statement of law but not to particular language. Where the jury instructions—considered in their entirety—clearly inform jurors that guilt requires proof beyond mere presence at the scene, no additional “mere presence” instruction is mandated. Because the trial court here instructed jurors on the presumption of innocence, burden of proof, elements of PFBPP and CCDW (including knowledge, concealment, possession), and correct definitions, the Court held the instruction was unnecessary and would have risked confusion.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Flamer v. State, 490 A.2d 104 (Del. 1983): A defendant is not entitled to any specific form of instruction but is guaranteed a correct statement of the substantive law; charges are reviewed for being “reasonably informative and not misleading.”
Cseh v. State, 947 A.2d 1112 (Del. 2008) and Wright v. State, 953 A.2d 144 (Del. 2008): Establish the de novo standard for reviewing refusal to give an instruction that embodies a defense theory.
Manlove v. State, 2005 WL 277929 (Del. Jan. 19, 2005): Held no separate “mere presence” instruction was required where jury charges on presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt made clear that presence alone could not suffice for conviction of possession.
Carter v. State, 873 A.2d 1086 (Del. 2005): Reaffirmed Manlove, stressing that jurors must be informed that more than mere physical presence is required; a separate instruction is unnecessary if the general charge covers the concept.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the following framework:

Right to Correct Substance: A defendant has the right to have the jury instructed on the correct law but not on particular phrasing (Flamer).
De Novo Review: The refusal to give a desired instruction that embodies a defense theory is reviewed de novo (Cseh, Wright).
Overall Sufficiency: If the charge as a whole makes clear that presence alone is insufficient, then no separate “mere presence” instruction is required (Manlove, Carter).

Applying these principles, the Court examined the Superior Court’s jury charge. It found multiple elements—especially knowledge, concealment, actual versus constructive possession, and the requirement that the State prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt—made plain that mere proximity to the scene or the discarded firearm could not establish guilt. Introducing a standalone instruction risked confusing jurors about what constituted the “scene of the crime” in the context of weapon possession statutes.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies and streamlines jury instruction practice in Delaware:

Trial courts need not burden juries with redundant “mere presence” charges when existing instructions already convey the necessity of proving possession, knowledge, or other contested elements.
Appellate courts will assess the adequacy of instructions on a holistic basis rather than demanding checklist-style inclusion of every pattern instruction.
Defendants must now show that the overall jury charge failed to communicate a core defense theory, not just that a typical pattern instruction was omitted.

Future cases involving proximity to contraband or witnesses to crimes will look to Boyce as authority that correct, comprehensive instructions suffice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Mere Presence” Instruction: A charge telling jurors that simply being at the scene—without proof of intent, control, or knowledge—cannot support a conviction.
Actual vs. Constructive Possession: Actual possession means holding an item; constructive possession arises when an item is within one’s control though not on one’s person.
De Novo Review: An appellate court examines an alleged legal error from scratch, without deference to the trial court’s decision.
Security Check Behavior: Police jargon describing how persons illegally carrying concealed firearms adjust their clothing or waistband to keep the weapon in place.

Conclusion

Boyce v. State reaffirms that jury charges must accurately state the law but need not include every form of pattern instruction if the overall charge already protects a defendant’s rights. By focusing on the substance of what jurors are told—presumption of innocence, burden of proof, elements of each offense, and proper definitions—the Delaware Supreme Court ensures clarity and avoids unnecessary complications. This ruling strengthens the practice of holistic jury instruction review and provides trial judges with guidance on when a standalone “mere presence” instruction is truly required.