Background
Tourae Mills was facing criminal charges in the Delaware Superior Court. On May 14, 2026, the Superior Court denied his motion to suppress the State’s evidence. Mills promptly appealed that ruling to the Delaware Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Senior Clerk issued a notice directing Mills to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, given that Delaware law generally bars interlocutory appeals in criminal matters. In his response, Mills addressed only the merits of the suppression motion and did not contest the jurisdictional deficiency identified by the court.
The Court’s Holding
The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal in a criminal case. The court grounded its ruling in the Delaware Constitution, Article IV, § 11(a)(2), which limits the Supreme Court’s review in criminal matters to final judgments.
The court made clear that the Superior Court’s order denying a motion to suppress is an interlocutory order, not a final judgment. The court noted, however, that Mills is not without recourse: if convicted at trial, he may appeal the final judgment and, at that time, seek review of the suppression ruling as well.
Key Takeaways
- The Delaware Constitution restricts Supreme Court review in criminal cases to final judgments; interlocutory orders — including suppression rulings — cannot be appealed mid-case.
- A defendant who loses a pretrial suppression motion must proceed to trial and, if convicted, may raise the suppression issue as part of a post-conviction appeal.
- Failing to address a jurisdictional defect in response to a show-cause notice will not save an appeal — the court dismissed on jurisdictional grounds without reaching the merits.
Why It Matters
This brief order is a straightforward but important reminder of Delaware’s finality rule in criminal appellate practice. Unlike civil litigation, where interlocutory appeals can sometimes be certified, criminal defendants in Delaware have no avenue to immediately challenge adverse pretrial rulings in the Supreme Court — even significant ones like suppression orders that may effectively determine the outcome of a case.
Practitioners should advise clients that an unfavorable suppression ruling does not itself create a right to immediate appellate review. The proper path is to preserve the issue for appeal after a final judgment, underscoring the importance of a complete trial record and timely post-conviction appellate filings.