Police say an authorized deer hunt ended with a woman dead and the hunter facing manslaughter and three reckless-endangering counts.
ELLENDALE, Del. — A Delaware program intended to help farmers control crop damage from deer has become part of a manslaughter case after police said a Maryland hunter participating in an authorized hunt fired at what he believed was a deer and instead killed a woman walking through the field with three other people.
The distinction matters because the Sept. 18 shooting initially appeared to raise a straightforward question: Why was Walter Moorhead, 74, hunting deer with a rifle before Delaware’s regular general firearm season? State hunting schedules show that archery and crossbow deer seasons had begun Sept. 1, while the statewide general firearm season was scheduled for November. Police later supplied an important piece of context. Moorhead, of Salisbury, Maryland, was hunting under an active crop-damage permit, Delaware State Police spokesman Raushan Rich told the Delaware News Journal.
Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control maintains several programs for commercial farms experiencing deer damage. The programs can provide additional antlerless deer tags and, at higher levels, expand the period during which deer may be harvested. DNREC says the approach is designed to reduce agricultural losses when ordinary hunting seasons do not sufficiently control local deer populations. The agency also encourages nonlethal measures and requires different levels of documentation depending on the severity of the damage. A valid crop-damage authorization, however, does not eliminate the responsibility to comply with other hunting and firearm rules.
The criminal case concerns what police say happened during one such hunt. Delaware State Police said Santos Maria Chilel Soto, 39, of Georgetown, was walking through an open field near South Old State Road, north of East Robbins Road, with a man and two children. Moorhead was positioned in a ground blind and hunting deer. According to police, he believed he saw a deer, fired his rifle and struck Chilel Soto. Troopers were dispatched at about 7:40 p.m., provided emergency care and had her transported to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead.
Court documents provide more detail about how investigators say Moorhead selected the target. According to a probable-cause affidavit described by WHYY and local news outlets, Moorhead told police he had seen what he believed was a doe through the scope of his rifle. He said the target moved and that he repositioned himself and the rifle. He then fired. The affidavit says Moorhead later walked toward the area where he believed the animal had fallen and encountered Chilel Soto and the people who had been walking with her. A scoped rifle was recovered during the investigation, according to WBOC.
Those details turned the inquiry from a question about hunting authorization into a homicide investigation. Troopers contacted Moorhead at the scene and took him to Troop 4 for questioning. State police charged him with manslaughter, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and three counts of first-degree reckless endangering. Moorhead was arraigned and released after posting $43,000 cash bond. The charges are allegations, and the public court process has not produced a determination that he committed the offenses.
The three reckless-endangering counts underscore that investigators were examining more than the fatal injury alone. Chilel Soto was not walking by herself. Police said three other people were nearby when the rifle was fired. Court documents reported by local media said the group was close together when the shot rang out. Her partner said he saw her collapse, applied pressure to her wound and called 911. Authorities have not publicly released a complete trajectory analysis, measurements showing the exact shooting distance or the full set of forensic findings.
The timing of the shot has also attracted attention. The Delaware News Journal reported that sunset occurred at about 7:05 p.m. that day. Ordinary Delaware deer-hunting hours generally run until one-half hour after sunset during authorized seasons, although the precise rules applicable to a crop-damage hunt depend on the permit and other regulations. Police placed their response at approximately 7:40 p.m. Family accounts have included an earlier time for the beginning of the walk. The reviewed records do not establish a final judicial finding about when the trigger was pulled or whether hunting-hour rules form part of the criminal allegations.
DNREC’s crop-damage system exists because deer can cause substantial losses to Delaware farms, especially fields planted with crops attractive to the animals. The state has expanded management options over the years, allowing participating landowners to rely on hunters to reduce antlerless deer populations. Some programs permit hunting well beyond the normal dates available to recreational hunters. The policy context explains how someone could lawfully be hunting deer with a firearm when the ordinary statewide firearm season had not begun. It does not answer whether an individual shot was responsible or criminally reckless.
That distinction is reflected in the charges. Police did not announce that Moorhead was being prosecuted simply for hunting out of season. Instead, the lead allegation is manslaughter based on the fatal shot, joined by the firearm count and the allegations that other people in the field were recklessly endangered. Prosecutors would have to prove the elements of those crimes in court. Moorhead’s description of seeing a doe through his scope is evidence reported from his police interview, not a finding that automatically excuses or establishes his conduct.
The case has also drawn attention to the shared nature of rural land. The field was being used for deer management, but members of the public or local community also walked in the area, according to the family. Chilel Soto’s partner told WHYY that the corn had already been harvested and that people walked through the field. Her relatives said she had gone there for an ordinary evening walk. Whether Moorhead knew or should have known people could be present is among the circumstances that may be relevant to investigators and prosecutors, but authorities have not publicly released enough evidence to make a final assessment.
Chilel Soto was a mother of five and originally from Guatemala, according to interviews with her family. Her sister said she worked as a cleaner and knew many people in the community. Relatives and supporters have questioned how she could have been confused with a deer and have pressed authorities for a full investigation. Their concerns led to public gatherings and calls for accountability, but they remain distinct from the evidence a court will consider in deciding the charges.
On Sept. 25, the legal process moved forward when Moorhead waived his preliminary hearing in Sussex County Court of Common Pleas. A preliminary hearing would ordinarily allow a judge to determine whether sufficient probable cause exists to continue the felony charges. His lawyer, Michael Abram, told the Delaware News Journal that the defense chose not to hold the hearing because it believed the proceeding could become a “circus.” The waiver was not a guilty plea and did not establish the facts alleged by police.
The decision sent the case toward Delaware Superior Court, and reporting indicated it could next be presented to a grand jury. That means the most consequential questions about the hunt remain unresolved: what Moorhead could see from the blind, how he identified the object in his scope, the distance and lighting conditions, what precautions were taken before the shot and whether his actions amounted to criminal recklessness. Those matters will depend on evidence, not simply on the existence of the hunting permit.
Currently, the reviewed public record does not show a final disposition of Moorhead’s case. The crop-damage authorization has clarified why the hunt was occurring, while the manslaughter prosecution continues to address a different issue — why a rifle fired during that hunt struck Santos Maria Chilel Soto and whether the circumstances meet the standard for criminal liability.
Author note: Last updated November 7, 2026.