Hughes test in Delaware

2024This is known as the Hughes test after our 1981 decision of the same name. 158 “When more than 153 Heald v. State, 251 A.3d at 653. 154 Id. 155 Baker, 906 A.2d at 148 . 156 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 157 Keyser v. State, 893 A.2d 956, 959 (Del. 2006) (citing U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 732–34, (1993); Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 ). 158 Watson, 303 A.3d at 48 (citing Hughes v. State, 437 A.2d 559 (Del 1981)).

2024This is known as the Hughes test after our 1981 decision of the same name. 158 “When more than 153 Heald v. State, 251 A.3d at 653. 154 Id. 155 Baker, 906 A.2d at 148 . 156 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 157 Keyser v. State, 893 A.2d 956, 959 (Del. 2006) (citing U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 732–34, (1993); Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 ). 158 Watson, 303 A.3d at 48 (citing Hughes v. State, 437 A.2d 559 (Del 1981)).

2024This is known as the Hughes test after our 1981 decision of the same name. 158 “When more than 153 Heald v. State, 251 A.3d at 653. 154 Id. 155 Baker, 906 A.2d at 148 . 156 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 157 Keyser v. State, 893 A.2d 956, 959 (Del. 2006) (citing U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 732–34, (1993); Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 ). 158 Watson, 303 A.3d at 48 (citing Hughes v. State, 437 A.2d 559 (Del 1981)).

2024This is known as the Hughes test after our 1981 decision of the same name. 158 “When more than 153 Heald v. State, 251 A.3d at 653. 154 Id. 155 Baker, 906 A.2d at 148 . 156 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 157 Keyser v. State, 893 A.2d 956, 959 (Del. 2006) (citing U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 732–34, (1993); Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 ). 158 Watson, 303 A.3d at 48 (citing Hughes v. State, 437 A.2d 559 (Del 1981)).

2020Moreover, we apply the test itself in a contextual, case-by- case, and fact sensitive manner. 33 If we conclude that prosecutorial misconduct has occurred but that reversal is not warranted because of the failure to meet the Wainwright standard under plain- error review or the Hughes standard under harmful-error analysis, we proceed to yet another analytical step in accordance with our decision in Hunter v. State.34 Under Hunter, even where we are unable to conclude that the prosecutor’s misconduct was so prejudicial as to compromise the fairness of the trial process, we may yet reverse where

2020Moreover, we apply the test itself in a contextual, case-by- case, and fact sensitive manner. 33 If we conclude that prosecutorial misconduct has occurred but that reversal is not warranted because of the failure to meet the Wainwright standard under plain- error review or the Hughes standard under harmful-error analysis, we proceed to yet another analytical step in accordance with our decision in Hunter v. State.34 Under Hunter, even where we are unable to conclude that the prosecutor’s misconduct was so prejudicial as to compromise the fairness of the trial process, we may yet reverse where

2023If the prosecutorial misconduct is found to be prejudicial under Hughes, the misconduct warrants reversal, and the analysis ends.21 “If the conduct is found 15 Baker, 906 A.2d at 148 . 16 Id. 17 Appiah, 2019 WL 6647806 , at *3 (citing Kirkley v. State, 41 A.3d 372, 376 (Del. 2012)). 18 437 A.2d 559 (Del. 1981). 19 Kirkley, 41 A.3d at 376 (citing Baker, 906 A.2d at 149 ). 20 Baker, 906 A.2d at 149 . 21 Kirkley, 41 A.3d at 376 . not to have prejudiced the defendant under the Hughes test, Delaware Courts must apply the Hunter test which considers ‘whether the prosecutor’s statements are repetitiv

2023If the prosecutorial misconduct is found to be prejudicial under Hughes, the misconduct warrants reversal, and the analysis ends.21 “If the conduct is found 15 Baker, 906 A.2d at 148 . 16 Id. 17 Appiah, 2019 WL 6647806 , at *3 (citing Kirkley v. State, 41 A.3d 372, 376 (Del. 2012)). 18 437 A.2d 559 (Del. 1981). 19 Kirkley, 41 A.3d at 376 (citing Baker, 906 A.2d at 149 ). 20 Baker, 906 A.2d at 149 . 21 Kirkley, 41 A.3d at 376 . not to have prejudiced the defendant under the Hughes test, Delaware Courts must apply the Hunter test which considers ‘whether the prosecutor’s statements are repetitiv

2019Spence IT, 129 A.3d at 219 . °° Baker, 906 A.2d at 149 (citing Hughes, 437 A.2d at 571 ) (Hughes Test factors are not conjunctive, and one factor may outweigh the others). >! 815 A.2d 730 (Del. 2002). >?

2018May 15, 2014) (citing Kirkley v. State, 41 A.2d 372 , 376 (Del. 2012)) [hereinafter Spence 1 ]. 12 determines that no misconduct occurred, then the analysis ends.34 On the other hand, if the Court finds that prosecutorial misconduct occurred, the next step is to decide “whether the misconduct prejudicially affected the defendant.”35 The Court conducts the test articulated in Hughes v. State36 to determine if the misconduct prejudicially affected the defendant (the “Hughes test”).37 The factors are “(1) the closeness of the case, (2) the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and (3) th

2024This is known as the Hughes test after our 1981 decision of the same name. 158 “When more than 153 Heald v. State, 251 A.3d at 653. 154 Id. 155 Baker, 906 A.2d at 148 . 156 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 157 Keyser v. State, 893 A.2d 956, 959 (Del. 2006) (citing U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 732–34, (1993); Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 ). 158 Watson, 303 A.3d at 48 (citing Hughes v. State, 437 A.2d 559 (Del 1981)).

2024This is known as the Hughes test after our 1981 decision of the same name. 158 “When more than 153 Heald v. State, 251 A.3d at 653. 154 Id. 155 Baker, 906 A.2d at 148 . 156 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 157 Keyser v. State, 893 A.2d 956, 959 (Del. 2006) (citing U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 732–34, (1993); Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 ). 158 Watson, 303 A.3d at 48 (citing Hughes v. State, 437 A.2d 559 (Del 1981)).

2022Then, the Court would need to transplant Defendant’s vacatur to establish intentional or reckless prosecutorial misconduct under the Hughes test. 61 See id. at 54–55. 62 Id. at 59. 63 Id. at 61 (quoting Bailey v. State, 521 A.2d 1069, 1084 (Del. 1987)). 15 Alternatively, the Court would need to bolt remnants of dictum from the subsequent decision of Bobby Taylor in order to find a pattern of intentional or reckless prosecutorial misconduct under Hunter.

2022Then, the Court would need to transplant Defendant’s vacatur to establish intentional or reckless prosecutorial misconduct under the Hughes test. 61 See id. at 54–55. 62 Id. at 59. 63 Id. at 61 (quoting Bailey v. State, 521 A.2d 1069, 1084 (Del. 1987)). 15 Alternatively, the Court would need to bolt remnants of dictum from the subsequent decision of Bobby Taylor in order to find a pattern of intentional or reckless prosecutorial misconduct under Hunter.

2022Then, the Court would need to transplant Defendant’s vacatur to establish intentional or reckless prosecutorial misconduct under the Hughes test. 61 See id. at 54–55. 62 Id. at 59. 63 Id. at 61 (quoting Bailey v. State, 521 A.2d 1069, 1084 (Del. 1987)). 15 Alternatively, the Court would need to bolt remnants of dictum from the subsequent decision of Bobby Taylor in order to find a pattern of intentional or reckless prosecutorial misconduct under Hunter.

2022Then, the Court would need to transplant Defendant’s vacatur to establish intentional or reckless prosecutorial misconduct under the Hughes test. 61 See id. at 54–55. 62 Id. at 59. 63 Id. at 61 (quoting Bailey v. State, 521 A.2d 1069, 1084 (Del. 1987)). 15 Alternatively, the Court would need to bolt remnants of dictum from the subsequent decision of Bobby Taylor in order to find a pattern of intentional or reckless prosecutorial misconduct under Hunter.

2021This Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to require a trial court to decide a matter in a particular way, nor may a defendant use a writ of 1 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988) (internal quotation omitted). 2 In re Shockley, 2005 WL 2475731, at *2 (Del.

2021This Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to require a trial court to decide a matter in a particular way, nor may a defendant use a writ of 1 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988) (internal quotation omitted). 2 In re Shockley, 2005 WL 2475731, at *2 (Del.

2018Super. 1987)(citing Um'tea' States v. Stuart-Caballero, 686 F.2d 890, 892 (11th Cir. 1982)). 6 Stuart-Caballero, 686 F.2d at 892 . 7 Yoder, 541 A.2d at 142 (citing Grijj‘in v. California, 85 U.S. 1229 (1965)). 8 437 A.2d 559 (Del. 1981). part test: “[t]he decisive factors are the closeness of case, centrality of issue affected by alleged error, and the steps taken to mitigate effect of error.”9 If the Court finds prosecutorial misconduct pursuant to the Hughes test, the Court must take an additional step to determine whether reversal is mandated In Hunter v. Statem, the Delaware Supreme Court

2018Super. 1987)(citing Um'tea' States v. Stuart-Caballero, 686 F.2d 890, 892 (11th Cir. 1982)). 6 Stuart-Caballero, 686 F.2d at 892 . 7 Yoder, 541 A.2d at 142 (citing Grijj‘in v. California, 85 U.S. 1229 (1965)). 8 437 A.2d 559 (Del. 1981). part test: “[t]he decisive factors are the closeness of case, centrality of issue affected by alleged error, and the steps taken to mitigate effect of error.”9 If the Court finds prosecutorial misconduct pursuant to the Hughes test, the Court must take an additional step to determine whether reversal is mandated In Hunter v. Statem, the Delaware Supreme Court

2018DISCUSSION Our Supreme Court has acknowledged that “closing argument is an aspect of a fair trial which is implicit in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by which the States are bound.”44 lt is well established that a prosecutor may not misrepresent the evidence presented at trial,45 is allowed to explain legitimate inferences that can be drawn from the evidence, and is not confined to repeat the evidence that was presented at trial.46 His role is not only to convict the guilty, but also to protect the rights of the accused and to seek justice.47 42 Spence I, 2014 WL 2089506 ,

2018DISCUSSION Our Supreme Court has acknowledged that “closing argument is an aspect of a fair trial which is implicit in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by which the States are bound.”44 lt is well established that a prosecutor may not misrepresent the evidence presented at trial,45 is allowed to explain legitimate inferences that can be drawn from the evidence, and is not confined to repeat the evidence that was presented at trial.46 His role is not only to convict the guilty, but also to protect the rights of the accused and to seek justice.47 42 Spence I, 2014 WL 2089506 ,

2018DISCUSSION Our Supreme Court has acknowledged that “closing argument is an aspect of a fair trial which is implicit in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by which the States are bound.”44 lt is well established that a prosecutor may not misrepresent the evidence presented at trial,45 is allowed to explain legitimate inferences that can be drawn from the evidence, and is not confined to repeat the evidence that was presented at trial.46 His role is not only to convict the guilty, but also to protect the rights of the accused and to seek justice.47 42 Spence I, 2014 WL 2089506 ,

2018DISCUSSION Our Supreme Court has acknowledged that “closing argument is an aspect of a fair trial which is implicit in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by which the States are bound.”44 lt is well established that a prosecutor may not misrepresent the evidence presented at trial,45 is allowed to explain legitimate inferences that can be drawn from the evidence, and is not confined to repeat the evidence that was presented at trial.46 His role is not only to convict the guilty, but also to protect the rights of the accused and to seek justice.47 42 Spence I, 2014 WL 2089506 ,

2018However, the Court finds that the error was not intended by the State to induce a mistrial, and that there is no evidence of bad faith by the prosecutor. 21 Revel v. State, 956 A.2d 23, 27 (Del. 2008).

2018However, the Court finds that the error was not intended by the State to induce a mistrial, and that there is no evidence of bad faith by the prosecutor. 21 Revel v. State, 956 A.2d 23, 27 (Del. 2008).

2005See also Zimmerman v. State, 628 A.2d 62, 65 (Del.1993) (applying Hughes test to context of motions for mistrial). 22 .