16 Del. C. § 4754
Drug dealing; class D felony
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, deliver, or possess with the intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance.
(b) Violation of subsection (a) of this section is a class D felony.
78 Del. Laws, c. 13, § 42; 82 Del. Laws, c. 217, § 8;Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Donald v. State
Donald v. State (2006)
“Donald has not shown that the probation officers would not have found the evidence, nor has she shown that Corporal Hake was in a unique position to discover the evidence.”
Jenkins v. State (2009)
“White was able to smell the marijuana and develop a reasonable suspicion that Jenkins was driving under the influence, or possessed marijuana before he stated that Jenkins smelled of marijuana. . 21 Del. C. § 4177.”
Schramm v. State (1976)
“McNEILLY, Justice: Defendant appeals from his conviction on three charges of possessing non-narcotic Schedule I controlled substances 16 Del. C. § 4754 (one with intent to deliver) 16 Del.”
State v. Flowers (2020)
“Flowers with drug dealing in heroin in violation of 16 Del. C. § 4754(1)); Plea Agreement and Guilty Plea Form, State v.”
Gala v. Bullock (2021)
“”64 Accordingly, citing to 16 Del. C. § 4754, he found that such activity would constitute a crime substantially related to the practice of medicine.”
Johnson v. State (2024)
“6 For drug dealing (heroin) under 16 Del. C. § 4754, the State had to prove that Johnson knowingly possessed with intent to deliver heroin.”
Rembert v. State (2025)
“§ 4754(1) (2011) (current version at 16 Del. C. § 4754 (2019)) (effective September 1, 2011, to December 14, 2019) with 16 Del.”
State v. Williams and Artis (2019)
“Williams is charged With one count of drug dealing pursuant to 16 Del. C. § 4754(1). He filed his motion to disclose confidential informants on October 9, 20183 and asserted that individuals he allegedly sold drugs to Were identified in an Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,…”
Thomas v. State (2024)
“35 Detective Arnold subsequently arrested Plaintiff for Possession of a Controlled Substance in a Tier I Quantity with an Aggravating Factor, in violation of 16 Del. C. § 4754; Drug Dealing, in violation of 16 Del.”
King v. Phelps (2020)
“Finally, Petitioner's conviction for drug dealing (16 Del. Code § 4754) did not depend upon the weight of the controlled substances, nor did the offenses for which he was indicted (drug dealing (16 Del.”
State of Delaware v. Mark Henderson (2016)
“THE FACTS On or about November 9, 2015, the Grand Jury indicted Mark Henderson and four others on three criminal charges – Drug Dealing in violation of 16 Del. C. § 4754(1) (the “Dealing Charge”), Promoting Prison Contraband in violation of 11 Del.”
State v. Harris (2017)
“§ 601(a)(1), and one count of Resisting Arrest, 11 Del.”
— 16 Del. C. § 4754(1) — 8 cases
State v. Flowers (2020)
“Flowers with drug dealing in heroin in violation of 16 Del. C. § 4754(1)); Plea Agreement and Guilty Plea Form, State v.”
State v. Williams and Artis (2019)
“Williams is charged With one count of drug dealing pursuant to 16 Del. C. § 4754(1). He filed his motion to disclose confidential informants on October 9, 20183 and asserted that individuals he allegedly sold drugs to Were identified in an Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,…”
State of Delaware v. Mark Henderson (2016)
“THE FACTS On or about November 9, 2015, the Grand Jury indicted Mark Henderson and four others on three criminal charges – Drug Dealing in violation of 16 Del. C. § 4754(1) (the “Dealing Charge”), Promoting Prison Contraband in violation of 11 Del.”
State v. Harris (2017)
“§ 601(a)(1), and one count of Resisting Arrest, 11 Del.”
State v. Hollis (2017)
— 16 Del. C. § 4754(3) — 2 cases
Kelley v. State (2019)
Mack v. State (2021)
— 16 Del. C. § 4754(a) — 4 cases
Donald v. State (2006)
“Donald has not shown that the probation officers would not have found the evidence, nor has she shown that Corporal Hake was in a unique position to discover the evidence.”
Gala v. Bullock (2021)
“”64 Accordingly, citing to 16 Del. C. § 4754, he found that such activity would constitute a crime substantially related to the practice of medicine.”
Johnson v. State (2024)
“6 For drug dealing (heroin) under 16 Del. C. § 4754, the State had to prove that Johnson knowingly possessed with intent to deliver heroin.”
Rembert v. State (2025)
“§ 4754(1) (2011) (current version at 16 Del. C. § 4754 (2019)) (effective September 1, 2011, to December 14, 2019) with 16 Del.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.