Watson v. State: New Precedent on Concealment Evidence in Carrying Concealed Deadly Weapons Charges

Introduction

Watson v. State is a 2025 decision of the Supreme Court of Delaware that clarifies the evidentiary requirements for proving the concealed-weapon element of a Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon (CCDW) charge under 11 Del. C. § 1442(a). The appellant, Hakeem Watson, was stopped by police for allegedly illegal window tint, fled on foot, discarded a firearm, and was subsequently charged with CCDW and resisting arrest. At trial, the court denied Watson’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal on the CCDW count and gave a jury instruction on flight as consciousness of guilt. Watson appealed both rulings. The Supreme Court reversed the denial of acquittal—finding no evidence he concealed the weapon from “ordinary sight”—and held the flight instruction issue moot.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Delaware, in an order delivered April 14, 2025, reversed the Superior Court’s denial of Watson’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the CCDW charge. It held that the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence that Watson “hidden [the firearm] from the ordinary sight of another person,” a requirement for a concealment finding under Delaware law. The Court found that Officer Crumlish had observed Watson only in side and rear profiles while Watson fled, never from the front where the firearm was carried, and thus no rational juror could find concealment beyond a reasonable doubt. Because Watson’s appeal of the flight instruction was tied exclusively to the CCDW count, that claim was rendered moot by the reversal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Robertson v. State (704 A.2d 267, Del. 1997): Defined “concealment” as “hidden from the ordinary sight of another person” and endorsed the “casual and ordinary observation” test.
Manuel v. State (186 A.3d 103, Del. 2018): Upheld a CCDW conviction where a detective physically seized a handgun from the defendant’s pants pocket during a pat-down, demonstrating concealment.
Goode v. State (136 A.3d 303, Del. 2016): Affirmed CCDW where a witness saw the defendant pull a pistol from under his clothing and point it at another, satisfying concealment through direct observation of emergence.
Thomas v. State (207 A.3d 1124, Del. 2019): Found sufficient both video evidence showing a firearm was initially out of sight and a witness account of the defendant retrieving and discharging it, cumulatively supporting concealment.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied de novo review to the Rule 29 motion, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Under § 1442(a), concealment—an essential element of CCDW—requires proof that the weapon was “hidden from the ordinary sight of another person.” The Court emphasized that no Delaware precedent permits a finding of concealment without evidence that the officer or observer saw the weapon emerge from a concealed position or otherwise observed the specific area of the body where the weapon was carried.

In Watson’s case, Officer Crumlish testified to observing only Watson’s side profile when he exited the vehicle and his rear profile during the foot pursuit. The officer never saw Watson’s front before Watson discarded the firearm, so no inference of concealment could be drawn. The Court distinguished prior cases—where detection, emergence from concealment, or corroborating video created a permissible inference—from Watson’s case, where no credible observation of the weapon’s concealed status existed.

Impact

The decision sets a clear evidentiary boundary for CCDW prosecutions in Delaware:

Prosecutors must establish that the weapon was hidden from “ordinary sight” through direct or circumstantial evidence showing the manner or place of concealment.
Observations limited to non-confrontational vantage points (side or rear profiles) without further detail about how the weapon was carried will be insufficient.
Courts must carefully scrutinize Rule 29 motions on CCDW counts to ensure the concealment element is satisfied by admissible evidence, not merely by flight or other collateral acts.
Jury instructions on flight as consciousness of guilt remain available but are irrelevant if the underlying count is reversed for insufficient evidence.

Future cases will likely require robust testimony or video evidence demonstrating how and where a weapon was concealed on the defendant’s person.

Complex Concepts Simplified

CCDW (11 Del. C. § 1442(a)): An offense that requires proof the defendant carried a deadly weapon concealed on or about their person without a license.
Concealment Test: A weapon is “concealed” if it is “hidden from the ordinary sight of another person,” meaning a casual observer in normal circumstances would not see it.
Judgment of Acquittal (Rule 29): A motion asking the court to dismiss charges after the State rests, on the ground that no rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Flight Instruction: A jury instruction allowing an inference that a defendant’s flight indicates consciousness of guilt, admissible only if there is evidence of flight tied to the charged offense.

Conclusion

Watson v. State establishes a significant new precedent: the concealment element of a CCDW charge cannot rest on general observations of a suspect’s side or rear profile. Prosecutors must provide evidence of how a weapon was hidden from ordinary sight—through direct emergence or corroborating visual proof—to satisfy the statute. By reversing Watson’s conviction on the CCDW count and rendering the flight instruction issue moot, the Supreme Court of Delaware has underscored the necessity of precise, fact-based proof of concealment. This ruling will shape future CCDW prosecutions, ensuring that convictions rest on concrete evidence of concealed carrying, not inference alone.