harmless error in Delaware

2014An error may be important if, for example, it concerned a witness giving significant testimony . . . .”11 “Under a harmless error analysis, ‘[t]he defendant has the initial burden of demonstrating error,’ and then the State has the burden to demonstrate that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”12 7 Manna v. State, 945 A.2d 1149, 1153 (Del. 2008) (citing Pope v. State, 632 A.2d 73 , 78–79 (Del. 1993)). 8 Allen v. State, 878 A.2d 447, 450 (Del. 2005) (citing Hall v. State, 788 A.2d 118, 123 (Del. 2001)). 9 Van Arsdall v. State, 524 A.2d 3 , 9–10 (Del. 1987). 10 Capano v. State, 781

2014An error may be important if, for example, it concerned a witness giving significant testimony . . . .”11 “Under a harmless error analysis, ‘[t]he defendant has the initial burden of demonstrating error,’ and then the State has the burden to demonstrate that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”12 7 Manna v. State, 945 A.2d 1149, 1153 (Del. 2008) (citing Pope v. State, 632 A.2d 73 , 78–79 (Del. 1993)). 8 Allen v. State, 878 A.2d 447, 450 (Del. 2005) (citing Hall v. State, 788 A.2d 118, 123 (Del. 2001)). 9 Van Arsdall v. State, 524 A.2d 3 , 9–10 (Del. 1987). 10 Capano v. State, 781

2018The Supreme Court reviews questions of law and constitutional claims de novo.82 ln the context of prosecutorial misconduct claims, where defense counsel timely objects, the ”83 The harmless error analysis Supreme Court will review for “harmless error. includes (1) de novo review of the record as to whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred; and (2) a determination of whether the conduct prejudicially affected the 81 To the extent the State argues that the defense opened the door for this line of questioning, Delaware has recognized the “invited response” or “invited reply” rule that two improp

2016“If defense counsel raised a timely and pertinent objection to prosecutorial misconduct at trial . . . we essentially review for ‘harmless error.’”9 Under the harmless error analysis, we first conduct a de novo review of the record and determine if misconduct occurred.10 If we determine there was no misconduct, the analysis ends.11 However, if we determine that there was misconduct, we then determine whether the defendant’s substantial rights were prejudicially affected by the misconduct.12 “Only improper comments or conduct that 9 Baker v. State, 906 A.2d 139, 148 (Del. 2006). 10 Id. 11 Id. 1

2025Accordingly, we find that the present case falls into the category of constitutional 30 386 U.S. 18, 22 (1967) (fashioning “a harmless-constitutional-error rule” the application of which depends on the reviewing court’s satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the defendant’s conviction). 31 Weddington, 545 A.2d at 614 . 32 Id. (quoting Chapman, 386 U.S. at 23 ). 17 violations to which, as Chapman recognizes, the harmless error rule does not apply. . . .

2025Accordingly, we find that the present case falls into the category of constitutional 30 386 U.S. 18, 22 (1967) (fashioning “a harmless-constitutional-error rule” the application of which depends on the reviewing court’s satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the defendant’s conviction). 31 Weddington, 545 A.2d at 614 . 32 Id. (quoting Chapman, 386 U.S. at 23 ). 17 violations to which, as Chapman recognizes, the harmless error rule does not apply. . . .

2025Harmless error is a case-specific, fact-intensive analysis.180 When the error complained of is constitutional in nature, we apply a “very exacting” test 181 that requires us to be convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”182 The focus is “not whether the legally admitted evidence was sufficient to support the [verdict],”183 but whether there is “a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.”184 178 Although the Majority points out that, unlike Weddington, the State advised

2014An error may be important if, for example, it concerned a witness giving significant testimony . . . .”11 “Under a harmless error analysis, ‘[t]he defendant has the initial burden of demonstrating error,’ and then the State has the burden to demonstrate that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”12 7 Manna v. State, 945 A.2d 1149, 1153 (Del. 2008) (citing Pope v. State, 632 A.2d 73 , 78–79 (Del. 1993)). 8 Allen v. State, 878 A.2d 447, 450 (Del. 2005) (citing Hall v. State, 788 A.2d 118, 123 (Del. 2001)). 9 Van Arsdall v. State, 524 A.2d 3 , 9–10 (Del. 1987). 10 Capano v. State, 781

2025Harmless error is a case-specific, fact-intensive analysis.180 When the error complained of is constitutional in nature, we apply a “very exacting” test 181 that requires us to be convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”182 The focus is “not whether the legally admitted evidence was sufficient to support the [verdict],”183 but whether there is “a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.”184 178 Although the Majority points out that, unlike Weddington, the State advised

2014An error may be important if, for example, it concerned a witness giving significant testimony . . . .”11 “Under a harmless error analysis, ‘[t]he defendant has the initial burden of demonstrating error,’ and then the State has the burden to demonstrate that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”12 7 Manna v. State, 945 A.2d 1149, 1153 (Del. 2008) (citing Pope v. State, 632 A.2d 73 , 78–79 (Del. 1993)). 8 Allen v. State, 878 A.2d 447, 450 (Del. 2005) (citing Hall v. State, 788 A.2d 118, 123 (Del. 2001)). 9 Van Arsdall v. State, 524 A.2d 3 , 9–10 (Del. 1987). 10 Capano v. State, 781

2019Feb. 16, 2000) (TABLE)). '°0 Clayton v. State, 765 A.2d 940, 942 (Del. 2001) (citing Brokenbrough v. State, 522 A.2d 851, 855 (Del. 1987)). '°!

2018The Supreme Court reviews questions of law and constitutional claims de novo.82 ln the context of prosecutorial misconduct claims, where defense counsel timely objects, the ”83 The harmless error analysis Supreme Court will review for “harmless error. includes (1) de novo review of the record as to whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred; and (2) a determination of whether the conduct prejudicially affected the 81 To the extent the State argues that the defense opened the door for this line of questioning, Delaware has recognized the “invited response” or “invited reply” rule that two improp

2017The Court has reviewed the trial transcript as well as transcripts of the undisclosed statements of Bret Chatman, Jonathan Duarte, and Emily Godek and 33 Lance v. State, 600 A.2d 337, 342 (Del. 1991). 34 Valentin v. State, 74 A.3d 645, 649 (Del. 2013). 33 437 A.2d 559, 571 (Del. 1981); Skinner v. State, 575 A.2d 1108, 1126 (Del. 1990). 33 Valentin, at 649. 33Kirkley v. State, 41 A.3d 372, 376 (del. 201 33Lance, at 343 (citing ch Arsdall v. State, 524 A.2d 3, 10 (Del. 1987)). 331a’. 13 finds that the Jencks violation for failure to produce those statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

2015Kirkley v. State, 41 A.3d 372, 376 (Del.2012) (citing Baker, 906 A.2d at 148 ). 6 .

2018AFTE [Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners] standards acknowledge that these decisions involve subjective qualitative judgments by examiners and that the accuracy of examiners' assessments is highly dependent on their skill and training."). 47 Hansley v. State , 104 A.3d 833 , 837 (Del. 2014), as corrected (Nov. 5, 2014) ("Under a harmless error analysis, '[t]he defendant has the initial burden of demonstrating error,' and then the State has the burden to demonstrate that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." (quoting Williams v. State , 98 A.3d 917 , 921-22 (Del. 2014)

2014An error may be important if, for example, it concerned a witness giving significant testimony . . . .”11 “Under a harmless error analysis, ‘[t]he defendant has the initial burden of demonstrating error,’ and then the State has the burden to demonstrate that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”12 7 Manna v. State, 945 A.2d 1149, 1153 (Del. 2008) (citing Pope v. State, 632 A.2d 73 , 78–79 (Del. 1993)). 8 Allen v. State, 878 A.2d 447, 450 (Del. 2005) (citing Hall v. State, 788 A.2d 118, 123 (Del. 2001)). 9 Van Arsdall v. State, 524 A.2d 3 , 9–10 (Del. 1987). 10 Capano v. State, 781

2015Thus, while a jury, hearing only the direct testimony and cross-examination of Chamblee, Mays and Dawson may have still returned a guilty verdict; there is also the very real likelihood that a jury, hearing that same testimony, would have reached a different conclusion. 74 Tr. of Dawson at 173–176. 75 Tr. of Detective Brock at 33–34. 76 Tr. of Detective Brock at 33; Tr. of Dawson at 175. 77 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693–694. 22 The prejudice analysis under Strickland is analogous to a harmless error analysis, and is thus instructive.

2008Supr.) (quoting Stansbury v. State, 591 A.2d 188 (Del. 1991)). [11] Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990); Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694 . [12] Shelton v. State, 744 A.2d 465, 475 (Del. 2000) (quoting Outten v. State, 720 A.2d 547, 552 (Del. 1998)). [13] Id. (quoting Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996)). [14] See Pennsylvania v. Reaves, 923 A.2d 1119, 1130 (Pa. 2007) ("This Court has long recognized the distinction between Strickland prejudice and the harmless error standard applicable in the direct review context, and this distinction can be outcome-determinative.");

1996Accord United States v. Jonnet, 3d Cir., 762 F.2d 16, 19 (1985) (applying the harmless error standard of Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a)); Van Arsdall v. State, Del.Supr., 486 A.2d 1, 10 (1984) (trial judge’s contact with the jury in driving several jurors to their overnight accommodations was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt), vacated on other grounds, 524 A.2d 3 (1987). 3 .

1987"No judge welcomes or can ignore being told that he has committed a constitutional violation, even if the conviction is saved by a harmless error finding.” Id., 475 U.S., at -, 106 S.Ct., at 1439 (White, J., concurring).

2025Accordingly, we find that the present case falls into the category of constitutional 30 386 U.S. 18, 22 (1967) (fashioning “a harmless-constitutional-error rule” the application of which depends on the reviewing court’s satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the defendant’s conviction). 31 Weddington, 545 A.2d at 614 . 32 Id. (quoting Chapman, 386 U.S. at 23 ). 17 violations to which, as Chapman recognizes, the harmless error rule does not apply. . . .

2025Accordingly, we find that the present case falls into the category of constitutional 30 386 U.S. 18, 22 (1967) (fashioning “a harmless-constitutional-error rule” the application of which depends on the reviewing court’s satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the defendant’s conviction). 31 Weddington, 545 A.2d at 614 . 32 Id. (quoting Chapman, 386 U.S. at 23 ). 17 violations to which, as Chapman recognizes, the harmless error rule does not apply. . . .

2025I also agree with the Majority’s conclusion that the wrongful admission of racially charged evidence can be subject to harmless-error 167 Floudiotis v. State, 726 A.2d 1196, 1202 (Del. 1999); see also Pierce v. State, 937 A.2d 140 , 2007 WL 3301027 , at *4 (Del. 2007) (TABLE); Weddington v. State, 545 A.2d 607, 613 (Del. 1988). 168 In my view, there was no probative value. 57 review in appropriate circumstances.169 I part ways with the Majority, however, and would reverse Jewell’s convictions because (1) this is not an appropriate case for harmless-error review; and (2) even if a harmless-erro

2025I also agree with the Majority’s conclusion that the wrongful admission of racially charged evidence can be subject to harmless-error 167 Floudiotis v. State, 726 A.2d 1196, 1202 (Del. 1999); see also Pierce v. State, 937 A.2d 140 , 2007 WL 3301027 , at *4 (Del. 2007) (TABLE); Weddington v. State, 545 A.2d 607, 613 (Del. 1988). 168 In my view, there was no probative value. 57 review in appropriate circumstances.169 I part ways with the Majority, however, and would reverse Jewell’s convictions because (1) this is not an appropriate case for harmless-error review; and (2) even if a harmless-erro

2023They just differ in terms of victim and severity of injury or death.”); id. at A33 (Defense’s opening) (“To be criminally neglect conduct, the defendant’s conduct must have posed a risk of death of such a nature and degree that his failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation of the standard of conduct a reasonable person would observe in the situation.”). 41 United States v. Argueta-Rosales, 819 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2016) (“When a district court in a bench trial has made a legal error regarding the elements of an offense, the error is reviewed using the same harmless error standa

2022Exercising this remedial discretion, the Court began to develop doctrines aimed at returning the Great Writ closer to its historic office.” (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (emphasis in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (a)). 55 See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82 (1976) (“[W]here the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the Constitution does not require that a state prisoner be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.”). 56 See Wainwrig

2022Exercising this remedial discretion, the Court began to develop doctrines aimed at returning the Great Writ closer to its historic office.” (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (emphasis in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (a)). 55 See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82 (1976) (“[W]here the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the Constitution does not require that a state prisoner be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.”). 56 See Wainwrig

2022Exercising this remedial discretion, the Court began to develop doctrines aimed at returning the Great Writ closer to its historic office.” (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (emphasis in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (a)). 55 See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82 (1976) (“[W]here the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the Constitution does not require that a state prisoner be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.”). 56 See Wainwrig

2022Exercising this remedial discretion, the Court began to develop doctrines aimed at returning the Great Writ closer to its historic office.” (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (emphasis in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (a)). 55 See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82 (1976) (“[W]here the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the Constitution does not require that a state prisoner be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.”). 56 See Wainwrig

2019For the same reasons stated in the harmless error analysis, following Morales, these statements were not improper. ”° Trump v. State, 753 A.2d 963, 966 (Del. 2000) (quoting Miller v. State, 750 A.2d 530 , 2000 WL 313484 , at *4 (Del.

2019It appears that Downs has conflated the requirements of conspiracy with those of accomplice liability; intent to aid or abet someone else is not a required element of conspiracy.23 20 Downs also raises insufficient evidence challenges as to his convictions of theft of a firearm possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, but because we vacate those convictions due to the hearsay issue, we need not reach whether they were supported by sufficient evidence. 21 Neal v. State, 3 A.3d 222, 223 (Del. 2010). 22 Am.

2019Feb. 16, 2000) (TABLE)). '°0 Clayton v. State, 765 A.2d 940, 942 (Del. 2001) (citing Brokenbrough v. State, 522 A.2d 851, 855 (Del. 1987)). '°!

2018See United States v. Zomber , 299 Fed.Appx. 130 , 135 n.8 (3d Cir. 2008) (declining to rule on a Brady claim because the result of the harmless error analysis of the Jencks claim was dispositive). 67 Because the original Superior Court judge acquitted Fowler on the count of Attempted Murder First Degree concerning the First Shooting and its related count of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, see App. to Opening Br. at A19-20 (Docket No. 143); Fowler , 2017 WL 4381384 , at *1, any new trial can concern only the charges Fowler was convicted for and not the charges which t

2018The Supreme Court reviews questions of law and constitutional claims de novo.82 ln the context of prosecutorial misconduct claims, where defense counsel timely objects, the ”83 The harmless error analysis Supreme Court will review for “harmless error. includes (1) de novo review of the record as to whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred; and (2) a determination of whether the conduct prejudicially affected the 81 To the extent the State argues that the defense opened the door for this line of questioning, Delaware has recognized the “invited response” or “invited reply” rule that two improp