Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jewell v. State
Because the substance of Jewell’s threats was beyond dispute, his argument to the jury was limited to pleading for sympathy and pointing his finger at the victim for tolerating Jewell’s menacing 100 Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391, 403 (1991). 101 Williams v. State, 141 A.3d 1019, 1035 (Del. 2016) (quoting Van Arsdall II, 524 A.2d at 11 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McGuiness v. State
Holland, The Delaware Constitution: A Reference Guide 149–51 (2002). 267 Williams v. State, 141 A.3d 1019, 1035 (Del. 2016). 268 Id. 71 evidentiary rulings as a sign of favoritism toward one side, and nothing the judge said during the course of the trial should be viewed as expressing an opinion about the case’s outcome.269 Given that record, we are confident that the trial court’s isolated comment about Robinson’s testimony was not significant to the jury’s judgment.270 G.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Appiah v. State
VI. 17 Williams v. State, 141 A.3d 1019, 1033 (Del. 2016). 8 prejudice, confusion of the issues, and undue delay; and (4) whether the evidence is cumulative.”18 The question boils down to “whether the jury had in its possession sufficient information to appraise the biases, credibility, or motives of the witness.”19 (17) Even if the reviewing court finds that the trial court violated the defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation, however, “a reversal is required only if the reviewing court cannot conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”20 Whether an …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Downs v. State
If we find error, we next examine whether the error was harmless. 9 A constitutional error is harmless only if the State has proven “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”10 We must reverse if we find that the error was not harmless.11 (23) “If double hearsay is being offered into evidence, each aspect must qualify independently as an exception to the hearsay rule.” 12 Section 3507 acts as such an exception, permitting the admission of out-of-court statements of a present witness available for cross-examination. 9 We automati…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Burton v. May
Second, although there is a .55 gram difference between the reported weights of the white powder and a 0.07 gram difference between the reported weights for the plant substance,9 these minor discrepancies – on their own – are not the type “that would call into question the evidence seized and tested by the OCME in this case.”10 (D.I. 22-6 at 70; see, e.g., Williams v. State, 141 A.3d 1019, 1029 (Del. 2016) (explaining that “[d]iscrepancies in weight are common”); State v. McNair, 2016 WL 424999 , at *1 (Del.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mark D. FRANKLIN, Below
v.
STATE of Delaware, Below
v.
STATE of Delaware, Below
No. 57, 2016.
Supreme Court of Delaware.
Jun 1, 2016.
Published
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, Cr. ID No. 0108020942.
DISMISSED.