green
Positive treatment
41.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dillard v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
After the parties discussed 40 Purnell v. State, 254 A.3d 1053 , 1101 (Del. 2021) (quoting Daskin v. Knowles, 193 A.3d 717, 725 (Del. 2018)). 41 Purnell, 254 A.3d at 1101 (first citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993); and then citing Warner v. State, 787 A.2d 101 , at *1 (Del. 2001) (TABLE)). 42 Burrell v. State, 332 A.3d 412 , 430 (Del. 2024) (citing Purnell, 254 A.3d at 1101). 43 Purnell, 254 A.3d at 1101 (citing Flamer v. State, 490 A.2d 104, 113 (Del. 1983)). 44 Burrell, 332 A.3d at 430 (quoting Stevenson v. State, 149 A.3d 505, 516 (Del. 2016)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zebroski v. State
He claims that he suffered prejudice from the admission of this testimony because it made him seem guilty of more 26 Hastings v. State, 289 A.3d 1264 , 1270 (Del. 2023) (quoting Lowther v. State, 104 A.3d 840, 845 (Del. 2014)). 27 Stevenson v. State, 149 A.3d 505, 516 (Del. 2016) (citing King v. State, 239 A.2d 707, 709 (Del. 1968)). 28 Sanabria v. State, 974 A.2d 107, 112 (Del. 2009) (quoting People v. Resek, 821 N.E.2d 108 , 109–110 (N.Y. 2004)). 29 Id. (quoting McCormick, Evidence § 249 at 734 (Cleary 3d ed. 1984)). 30 D.R.E. 403; Sanabria, 974 A.2d at 112 . 9 serious offenses.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tucker v. State
Stevenson v. State, 149 A.3d 505, 516 (Del. 2016) (citing King v. State, 239 A.2d 707, 709 (Del. 1968)). 59 App. to Opening Br. at A321. 60 See Phipps v. State, 1996 WL 145739 , at *2 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Burrell v. State
Out of context, it almost makes it sound like he got shot, you know, by my client on this particular incident.”127 And when the Superior Court asked whether the name of the person who shot Church was relevant, defense counsel responded “No.”128 Given that record, we cannot conclude that defense counsel simply failed to assert Burrell’s 124 Id. at A33–35. 125 Purnell v. State, 254 A.3d 1053 , 1101 (Del. 2021). 126 Stevenson v. State, 149 A.3d 505, 516 (Del. 2016) (quoting and citing King v. State, 239 A.2d 707, 708 (Del. 1968)). 127 App. to Opening Br. at A36 (emphasis added). 128 Id.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bailey v. State
The Court found that the Confrontation Clause requires that juvenile adjudications be admissible for making “more particular” attacks on witness 7 Stevenson v. State, 149 A.3d 505, 509 (Del. 2016). 8 D.R.E. 609(d). 9 415 U.S. 308 (1974). 8 credibility to “reveal[] bias, prejudices, or ulterior motives of the witness as they may relate directly to the issues or personalities in the case at hand.”10 In Reid v. State,11 this Court recognized that Davis distinguishes between evidence offered under Rule 609 to undermine credibility in a general sense, and evidence that shows a bias and a mo…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pierce v. State
Ct. R. 8). 42 See, e.g., Stevenson v. State, 149 A.3d 505, 516 (Del. 2016) (“As this Court explained in King v. State, there is an express and effective waiver as to any appellate presentation on an issue where defense counsel responds to queries by a trial judge, by stating that there are no objections to the admission of evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Prince v. State
Thus, the State cannot use another offense to establish that the defendant had a propensity to commit the charged offense.”11 But evidence of other crimes may be admitted for purposes other than proving propensity, including to 5 Opening Brief at 21-22. 6 Transcript of Trial, May 9, 2018, at 133-38, 144-66. 7 Id. at 144-66. 8 See Stevenson v. State, 149 A.3d 505, 509 (Del. 2016) (stating that if an objection was made at trial, “this Court reviews a trial court’s ruling admitting or excluding evidence for abuse of discretion,” and if no objection was made “this Court reviews an eviden…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Pumphrey v. State
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
However, where a Motion for a New Trial raises a constitutional violation, we review that issue de novo.” (citations omitted)); Wright v. State, 91 A.3d 972, 982 (Del. 2014) (“Questions of law and constitutional claims, such as claims that the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, are reviewed de novo.” (citations omitted)). 7 Stevenson v. State, 149 A.3d 505, 509 (Del. 2016) (citations omitted). 8 Id. (citations omitted). 9 Id. (citing King v. State, 239 A.2d 707, 708 (Del. 1968)). 6 Lessig’s pre-trial identification was impermissibly suggestive and created a substantial like…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Malik J. Moss v. State of Delaware
Accordingly, the argument has been waived.46 44 Stevenson v. State, 149 A.3d 505, 509 (Del. 2016) (quoting Milligan v. State, 116 A.3d 1232, 1235 (Del. 2015)) (citing D.R.E. 103(a) (“Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected[.]”)). 45 App. to Opening Br. at A398-99 (Tr. 18:23-19:5) (“I’m ruling that that is not hearsay.”). 46 See Del.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Bryce Cody Transue
See Stevenson v. State, 149 A.3d 505, 507, 511-13 (Del. 2016) (admitting videotaped statements pursuant to Delaware Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) after defense counsel asked more than fifty questions regarding the prosecutor’s trial preparation of mother and her children, as well as admitting his true motive--addressing potential coaching--at side-bar); State v. Barkmeyer, 949 A.2d 984, 1005-06 (R.I. 2008) (admitting victim’s statements under Rhode Island Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) after defense counsel “both directly and indirectly implied that [child] was coached by the prosecution …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cruz-Webster
Admission of the 3507 Statement was not improper, and based on all the other evidence supporting examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with his testimony, or (B) consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person.”); see also Stevenson v. State, 149 A.3d 505 (Del. 2016) (holding that while the 11 Del.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gibson A. HALL, Below
v.
STATE of Delaware, Below
v.
STATE of Delaware, Below
No. 457, 2016.
Supreme Court of Delaware.
Sep 29, 2016.
Published
Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware, Cr. ID No. 88004234DI
DISMISSED.