Hunter test in Delaware

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

2023Watson has not argued that a Hunter analysis is appropriate in this case. 51 App. to Opening Br. at A384 (emphasis added). 52 Id. 22 Watson attempts to discredit the efficacy of the court’s jury instruction, noting that it was not given contemporaneously with the (now hypothetically considered) error.

2023Watson has not argued that a Hunter analysis is appropriate in this case. 51 App. to Opening Br. at A384 (emphasis added). 52 Id. 22 Watson attempts to discredit the efficacy of the court’s jury instruction, noting that it was not given contemporaneously with the (now hypothetically considered) error.

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

2020Supr. 2006). 56 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 57 815 A.2d 730 (Del. 2002). 58 Baker, 906 A.2d at 150 . 12 failure to reverse would compromise the integrity of the judicial process. 59 “Under the Hunter test we can reverse, but need not do so,”60 especially where other ways of dealing with the misconduct such as a referral to the Attorney General for internal discipline or to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel are more appropriate.61 Where, as with Trala’s “no objection” issue, defense counsel raises a timely objection or the trial judge addressed the issue sua sponte, then we review the alleg

2020Supr. 2006). 56 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 57 815 A.2d 730 (Del. 2002). 58 Baker, 906 A.2d at 150 . 12 failure to reverse would compromise the integrity of the judicial process. 59 “Under the Hunter test we can reverse, but need not do so,”60 especially where other ways of dealing with the misconduct such as a referral to the Attorney General for internal discipline or to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel are more appropriate.61 Where, as with Trala’s “no objection” issue, defense counsel raises a timely objection or the trial judge addressed the issue sua sponte, then we review the alleg

2022If not, the analysis proceeds to the third step, application of the Hunter standard.70 This standard permits reversal, among other remedies, when there exists “a persistent pattern of prosecutorial misconduct,” in which “‘[a] repetition of the same type or category of errors adversely affects the integrity of the judicial process.’”71 67 Cf. State v. Reyes, 155 A.3d 331, 341-42 (Del. 2017) (“It is clear from the transcript of the colloquy that the trial court determined that . . .

2022If not, the analysis proceeds to the third step, application of the Hunter standard.70 This standard permits reversal, among other remedies, when there exists “a persistent pattern of prosecutorial misconduct,” in which “‘[a] repetition of the same type or category of errors adversely affects the integrity of the judicial process.’”71 67 Cf. State v. Reyes, 155 A.3d 331, 341-42 (Del. 2017) (“It is clear from the transcript of the colloquy that the trial court determined that . . .

2020Id. 99 397 A.2d 540, 543 (Del. 1979). 100 Id.

2020Id. 99 397 A.2d 540, 543 (Del. 1979). 100 Id.

2020Where, as here, several of the prosecutor’s comments have been specifically identified as improper in past decisions, we conclude that reversal is mandated.94 Repetitive errors threaten the “integrity of the judicial process” because they demonstrate that “our prior judicial admonitions short of reversal are falling on deaf ears.”95 As we made clear in Saavedra, we do not look to the repetition of errors within a specific trial, rather, we look to “repetitions of the same errors over multiple trials, which reflects a disregard of our prior admonitions and thus impugns the integrity of the judi

2020Where, as here, several of the prosecutor’s comments have been specifically identified as improper in past decisions, we conclude that reversal is mandated.94 Repetitive errors threaten the “integrity of the judicial process” because they demonstrate that “our prior judicial admonitions short of reversal are falling on deaf ears.”95 As we made clear in Saavedra, we do not look to the repetition of errors within a specific trial, rather, we look to “repetitions of the same errors over multiple trials, which reflects a disregard of our prior admonitions and thus impugns the integrity of the judi

2019The Court will address them in order. 8° Baker, 906 A.2d at 150 ; see also Morales, 133 A.3d at 530 . 81504 A.2d 1096 (Del. 1986) (establishing the “Wainwright Test.). 82 See Morales, 133 A.3d at 529 ; see also Baker, 906 A.2d at 150 . 83 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 (internal citations omitted). 84 Baker, 906 A.2d at 149 (citing Hunter v. State, 815 A.2d 730, 732-33 (Del. 2002)) (The Hunter test examines “whether the prosecutor’s statements are repetitive errors that require reversal because they cast doubt on the integrity of the judicial process.”). 20 The State argued and submitted that th

2019The Court will address them in order. 8° Baker, 906 A.2d at 150 ; see also Morales, 133 A.3d at 530 . 81504 A.2d 1096 (Del. 1986) (establishing the “Wainwright Test.). 82 See Morales, 133 A.3d at 529 ; see also Baker, 906 A.2d at 150 . 83 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 (internal citations omitted). 84 Baker, 906 A.2d at 149 (citing Hunter v. State, 815 A.2d 730, 732-33 (Del. 2002)) (The Hunter test examines “whether the prosecutor’s statements are repetitive errors that require reversal because they cast doubt on the integrity of the judicial process.”). 20 The State argued and submitted that th

2016Hunter also has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that, 2 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 58-60 (Del. 1988) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-60 (1985)). 3 State v. Hunter, 2016 WL 1424398 (Del.

2016Hunter also has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that, 2 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 58-60 (Del. 1988) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-60 (1985)). 3 State v. Hunter, 2016 WL 1424398 (Del.

1981See Jenkins v. State, Del.Supr., 240 A.2d 146 (1968), aff’d, 395 U.S. 213 , 89 S.Ct. 1677 , 23 L.Ed.2d 253 (1969).

1981See Jenkins v. State, Del.Supr., 240 A.2d 146 (1968), aff’d, 395 U.S. 213 , 89 S.Ct. 1677 , 23 L.Ed.2d 253 (1969).

1981See Jenkins v. State, Del.Supr., 240 A.2d 146 (1968), aff’d, 395 U.S. 213 , 89 S.Ct. 1677 , 23 L.Ed.2d 253 (1969).

1981See Jenkins v. State, Del.Supr., 240 A.2d 146 (1968), aff’d, 395 U.S. 213 , 89 S.Ct. 1677 , 23 L.Ed.2d 253 (1969).