alibi instruction in Delaware

2025June 6, 2019) (TABLE) (reviewing for plain error a claim that the trial court erred by failing to give an alibi instruction even though the defendant did not request one); Gregory v. State, 293 A.3d 994 , 998 (Del. 2023) (citing plain error as the standard of review for untimely objection to jury instructions). 9 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 869 (1986). 4 of plain error is limited to material defects which are apparent on the face of the record; which are basic, serious and fundamental in their character, and which clearly deprive an accused of a

2018Ct. R. 8; Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 8 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 9 Brown v. State, 897 A.2d 748, 753 (Del. 2006). 10 Wright v. State, 980 A.2d 1020, 1023 (Del. 2009). 7 (18) “The defense of alibi…is based upon evidence that the defendant ‘was somewhere other than at the place the crime is alleged to have been committed when it is alleged to have been committed.’”11 We have held that “where a defendant offers an alibi defense by introducing substantial evidence showing that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed,” the Superior Court’s failure to give an al

2023Here, however, trial counsel has failed to explain why an alibi instruction would “divert consideration from unrelated weaknesses in the State’s case.” Id. 33 See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 374 A.2d 1 (Del. 1977); Gardner, 397 A.2d 1372 ; Brown, 958 A.2d 833 . 10 that “[i]f the evidence … [of alibi] raises in your mind a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, you must give [the defendant] the benefit of the doubt and return a verdict of not guilty.”34 The entitlement to the alibi instruction, of course, does not ineluctably imply that trial counsel was derelict for not wanting it.

2023It follows, then, that in light of the importance placed on an alibi instruction in Delaware law, the Court cannot “envision an advantage which could have been gained by withholding a request for the instruction[]” in this case.36 34 Brown, 958 A.2d at 839 (Del. 2008). 35 Smith, 991 A.2d at 1178. 36 See Smith v. State, 991 A.2d 1169, 1176 (Del. 2010) (finding trial counsel’s failure to request specific instruction on accomplice testimony amounted to “deficient performance” under the first prong of Strickland). 11 B.

2023Here, however, trial counsel has failed to explain why an alibi instruction would “divert consideration from unrelated weaknesses in the State’s case.” Id. 33 See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 374 A.2d 1 (Del. 1977); Gardner, 397 A.2d 1372 ; Brown, 958 A.2d 833 . 10 that “[i]f the evidence … [of alibi] raises in your mind a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, you must give [the defendant] the benefit of the doubt and return a verdict of not guilty.”34 The entitlement to the alibi instruction, of course, does not ineluctably imply that trial counsel was derelict for not wanting it.

2023Here, however, trial counsel has failed to explain why an alibi instruction would “divert consideration from unrelated weaknesses in the State’s case.” Id. 33 See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 374 A.2d 1 (Del. 1977); Gardner, 397 A.2d 1372 ; Brown, 958 A.2d 833 . 10 that “[i]f the evidence … [of alibi] raises in your mind a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, you must give [the defendant] the benefit of the doubt and return a verdict of not guilty.”34 The entitlement to the alibi instruction, of course, does not ineluctably imply that trial counsel was derelict for not wanting it.

2023At the time of Ms. Wright’s trial, it was (and remains) clear that under Delaware law, a defendant is entitled, upon request, to a specific jury instruction regarding an alibi defense if “there is some credible evidence showing that the defendant was elsewhere when the crime occurred.”23 The Delaware Supreme Court has defined “some credible evidence” as evidence “capable of being believed,” including sworn testimony.24 And, not long ago, our Supreme Court observed in Brown v. State that “[a]n alibi instruction is required so that a jury does not make a determination of guilt based on the ‘fail

2023It follows, then, that in light of the importance placed on an alibi instruction in Delaware law, the Court cannot “envision an advantage which could have been gained by withholding a request for the instruction[]” in this case.36 34 Brown, 958 A.2d at 839 (Del. 2008). 35 Smith, 991 A.2d at 1178. 36 See Smith v. State, 991 A.2d 1169, 1176 (Del. 2010) (finding trial counsel’s failure to request specific instruction on accomplice testimony amounted to “deficient performance” under the first prong of Strickland). 11 B.

2023Wright told police that she could not remember where she was the day of the shooting because she was high “off of Percs and Zanies.”14 At trial, Wright explained that she initially lied “because [she] wanted to have a lawyer present with [her] when [she] spoke” to the police.15 Wright testified, however, that during her police interview she asked for a lawyer and the interview ended.16 Moreover, Wright failed to provide any additional details about the corner store she claims to have visited at the time of the shooting, and no other witnesses corroborated or even mentioned her alibi at trial.

2023Jan. 12, 2012) (ORDER)). 14 App. to Opening Br. at A702-04. 15 Id. at A703. 16 Id. at A706. 17 Wright, 2023 WL 2128338, at *6. 6 counsel’s failure to request an alibi instruction and denied her motion for postconviction relief.

2023Nov. 3, 2017). 137 Alston v. State, 125 A.3d 676 , 2015 WL 5297709, at *3 (Del.

2023Nov. 3, 2017). 137 Alston v. State, 125 A.3d 676 , 2015 WL 5297709, at *3 (Del.

2023Wilmington police found shell casings of two different calibers, 19 Reed, 258 A.3d at 825–26. 20 See, e.g., Drummond v. State, 803 A.2d 427 , 2002 WL 1472281 , at *2 (Del. 2002) (ORDER) (“[I]n view of the overwhelming evidence of [the defendant’s] guilt, . . . [he] cannot establish actual prejudice from his trial counsel's failure to more thoroughly cross-examine [the arresting officer].”); Wright, 2023 WL 7125201 , at *2 (citing Neal v. State, 80 A.3d 935, 946 (Del. 2013)) (holding trial counsel’s failure to request an alibi instruction did not prejudice defendant given overwhelming evidence

2018Ct. R. 8; Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 8 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 9 Brown v. State, 897 A.2d 748, 753 (Del. 2006). 10 Wright v. State, 980 A.2d 1020, 1023 (Del. 2009). 7 (18) “The defense of alibi…is based upon evidence that the defendant ‘was somewhere other than at the place the crime is alleged to have been committed when it is alleged to have been committed.’”11 We have held that “where a defendant offers an alibi defense by introducing substantial evidence showing that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed,” the Superior Court’s failure to give an al

2018Ct. R. 8; Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 8 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 9 Brown v. State, 897 A.2d 748, 753 (Del. 2006). 10 Wright v. State, 980 A.2d 1020, 1023 (Del. 2009). 7 (18) “The defense of alibi…is based upon evidence that the defendant ‘was somewhere other than at the place the crime is alleged to have been committed when it is alleged to have been committed.’”11 We have held that “where a defendant offers an alibi defense by introducing substantial evidence showing that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed,” the Superior Court’s failure to give an al

2018Ct. R. 8; Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 8 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 9 Brown v. State, 897 A.2d 748, 753 (Del. 2006). 10 Wright v. State, 980 A.2d 1020, 1023 (Del. 2009). 7 (18) “The defense of alibi…is based upon evidence that the defendant ‘was somewhere other than at the place the crime is alleged to have been committed when it is alleged to have been committed.’”11 We have held that “where a defendant offers an alibi defense by introducing substantial evidence showing that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed,” the Superior Court’s failure to give an al

2018Ct. R. 8; Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 8 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 9 Brown v. State, 897 A.2d 748, 753 (Del. 2006). 10 Wright v. State, 980 A.2d 1020, 1023 (Del. 2009). 7 (18) “The defense of alibi…is based upon evidence that the defendant ‘was somewhere other than at the place the crime is alleged to have been committed when it is alleged to have been committed.’”11 We have held that “where a defendant offers an alibi defense by introducing substantial evidence showing that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed,” the Superior Court’s failure to give an al

2016See id. at *2. 16 Id., citing and summarizing Bonds v. Siare, 442 A.2d 572, 575 (Md.

2014In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must meet the two-pronged Strickland test by showing that counsel performed at a level below an objective standard of reasonableness, and 7 Younger, 580 A.2d at 555 (citing Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 297-99 (1989)) (emphasis added). 9 that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.8 That is, counsel’s deficient performance was so prejudicial as to undermine faith in the outcome. 9 In this case, Defendant’s argument that trial counsel was ineffective is without any factual support whatsoever.

2008See, e.g., United States v. Burse, 531 F.2d 1151, 1153 (2d Cir.1976) (finding error when the trial court failed to give an alibi instruction when the prosecution's case was "not overwhelming” and defendant presented an alibi and requested an alibi instruction); United States v. Marcus, 166 F.2d 497, 504 (3d Cir. 1948) (holding that the defendant is entitled to an alibi instruction that explains the burden of proof when the defendant requests such instruction); United States v. Hicks, 748 F.2d 854, 857 (4th Cir. 1984) (holding that the defendant is entitled to an alibi instruction when requeste

2008See, e.g., United States v. Burse, 531 F.2d 1151, 1153 (2d Cir.1976) (finding error when the trial court failed to give an alibi instruction when the prosecution's case was "not overwhelming” and defendant presented an alibi and requested an alibi instruction); United States v. Marcus, 166 F.2d 497, 504 (3d Cir. 1948) (holding that the defendant is entitled to an alibi instruction that explains the burden of proof when the defendant requests such instruction); United States v. Hicks, 748 F.2d 854, 857 (4th Cir. 1984) (holding that the defendant is entitled to an alibi instruction when requeste

2008See also United States v. Simon, 995 F.2d 1236, 1243-44 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that "given [defendant's defense of alibi, the trial court’s failure to provide [an alibi instruction] was not cured by the general instruction that the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ... nor ... by the general admonition that the ‘burden of proof never shifts to a defendant.' ... [because] in the special case of an alibi defense the jury charge on alibi must include a specific instruction setting forth the government’s burden of proof”) (internal citations omitted) (citing United States v. Bo

2008See also United States v. Simon, 995 F.2d 1236, 1243-44 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that "given [defendant's defense of alibi, the trial court’s failure to provide [an alibi instruction] was not cured by the general instruction that the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ... nor ... by the general admonition that the ‘burden of proof never shifts to a defendant.' ... [because] in the special case of an alibi defense the jury charge on alibi must include a specific instruction setting forth the government’s burden of proof”) (internal citations omitted) (citing United States v. Bo

2008See, e.g., United States v. Burse, 531 F.2d 1151, 1153 (2d Cir.1976) (finding error when the trial court failed to give an alibi instruction when the prosecution's case was "not overwhelming” and defendant presented an alibi and requested an alibi instruction); United States v. Marcus, 166 F.2d 497, 504 (3d Cir. 1948) (holding that the defendant is entitled to an alibi instruction that explains the burden of proof when the defendant requests such instruction); United States v. Hicks, 748 F.2d 854, 857 (4th Cir. 1984) (holding that the defendant is entitled to an alibi instruction when requeste

2008Wonnum v. State, 942 A.2d 569, 573-74 (Del.2007). 12 .

2008See also United States v. Simon, 995 F.2d 1236, 1243-44 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that "given [defendant's defense of alibi, the trial court’s failure to provide [an alibi instruction] was not cured by the general instruction that the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ... nor ... by the general admonition that the ‘burden of proof never shifts to a defendant.' ... [because] in the special case of an alibi defense the jury charge on alibi must include a specific instruction setting forth the government’s burden of proof”) (internal citations omitted) (citing United States v. Bo

2008See also United States v. Simon, 995 F.2d 1236, 1243-44 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that "given [defendant's defense of alibi, the trial court’s failure to provide [an alibi instruction] was not cured by the general instruction that the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ... nor ... by the general admonition that the ‘burden of proof never shifts to a defendant.' ... [because] in the special case of an alibi defense the jury charge on alibi must include a specific instruction setting forth the government’s burden of proof”) (internal citations omitted) (citing United States v. Bo

2008See also United States v. Simon, 995 F.2d 1236, 1243-44 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that "given [defendant's defense of alibi, the trial court’s failure to provide [an alibi instruction] was not cured by the general instruction that the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ... nor ... by the general admonition that the ‘burden of proof never shifts to a defendant.' ... [because] in the special case of an alibi defense the jury charge on alibi must include a specific instruction setting forth the government’s burden of proof”) (internal citations omitted) (citing United States v. Bo

2008See also United States v. Simon, 995 F.2d 1236, 1243-44 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that "given [defendant's defense of alibi, the trial court’s failure to provide [an alibi instruction] was not cured by the general instruction that the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ... nor ... by the general admonition that the ‘burden of proof never shifts to a defendant.' ... [because] in the special case of an alibi defense the jury charge on alibi must include a specific instruction setting forth the government’s burden of proof”) (internal citations omitted) (citing United States v. Bo