self-defense instruction in Delaware

2022Jan. 25, 1991) (“A defendant must present credible evidence that the victim was the aggressor to successfully assert a claim of self-defense.”); see also Tice v. State, 624 A.2d 399 , 401–02 (Del. 1993) (“The character of the victim is not . . . an essential element of a self-defense claim.”). 62 Prince argues in passing that counsel ineffectively conceded his guilt.

2011Tice v. State, 624 A.2d 399, 400 (Del.1993) ("We conclude that the character of the victim is not an essential element of a self-defense claim.”). 28 .

2025Nor he does provide a theory of admissibility in light of the fact that a victim’s character is generally not an essential element of a self-defense claim and DRE 405(b)’s general prohibition against the admission of specific instances of conduct to show that a victim had a general propensity for violence.250 Accordingly, Mayfield has not moved the ball towards either performance deficiency of actual prejudice with this argument. 249 Id., at 38. 250 Wright v. State, 25 A.3d 747, 755 (Del. 2011). 47 Finally, Mayfield reviews the time records of both trial counsel.

2024The Superior Court determined that the evidence presented did not support a self-defense instruction, emphasizing that when Norman assaulted Zink there was no imminent threat.8 (12) Title 11, Section 464(a) “sets forth the defense of justification or, as it is often colloquially called, ‘self-defense.’”9 The statute provides that the “use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.”10

2024The Superior Court determined that the evidence presented did not support a self-defense instruction, emphasizing that when Norman assaulted Zink there was no imminent threat.8 (12) Title 11, Section 464(a) “sets forth the defense of justification or, as it is often colloquially called, ‘self-defense.’”9 The statute provides that the “use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.”10

2024We review this claim de novo.7 3 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 4 Penson, 488 U.S. at 82 . 5 36 A.2d 27 (Del.

2024We review this claim de novo.7 3 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 4 Penson, 488 U.S. at 82 . 5 36 A.2d 27 (Del.

2024We review this claim de novo.7 3 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 4 Penson, 488 U.S. at 82 . 5 36 A.2d 27 (Del.

2024C. § 441(3). 7 Wright v. State, 953 A.2d 144, 147-48 (Del. 2008). 5 (11) Norman argued that a self-defense instruction was warranted based on his testimony that Zink (i) turned his truck into Norman’s vehicle as Norman’s vehicle crossed onto the shoulder on Zink’s side of the road and (ii) laughed when Norman approached his truck after the collision.

2024We review this claim de novo.7 3 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 4 Penson, 488 U.S. at 82 . 5 36 A.2d 27 (Del.

2024C. § 464(a). 11 Id. § 464(b). 12 Lewis v. State, 144 A.3d 1109, 1117 (Del. 2016). 6 (13) The jury may consider a defense only if the court is satisfied that there is credible evidence supporting each element of the defense.13 A defendant has presented evidence sufficient to satisfy the credible evidence threshold if the defendant’s version of events, if taken as true, would entitle the defendant to the requested instruction.14 (14) The Superior Court correctly concluded that the evidence did not satisfy that standard in this case.

2019We therefore review for abuse of discretion.20 (23) During and after the close of the State’s case-in-chief, the defense indicated that they would be seeking a self-defense instruction and an instruction on the lesser-included offense of attempted manslaughter under extreme emotional distress.21 The Superior Court made a preliminary ruling that not enough evidence had been presented during the State’s case-in-chief to support instructions on self- 17 Williams v. State, 796 A.2d 1281, 1290 (Del. 2002). 18 Opening Brief at 22-25. 19 Id. at 22. 20 See Pope v. State, 632 A.2d 73, 78-79 (Del. 1993)

2019We therefore review for abuse of discretion.20 (23) During and after the close of the State’s case-in-chief, the defense indicated that they would be seeking a self-defense instruction and an instruction on the lesser-included offense of attempted manslaughter under extreme emotional distress.21 The Superior Court made a preliminary ruling that not enough evidence had been presented during the State’s case-in-chief to support instructions on self- 17 Williams v. State, 796 A.2d 1281, 1290 (Del. 2002). 18 Opening Brief at 22-25. 19 Id. at 22. 20 See Pope v. State, 632 A.2d 73, 78-79 (Del. 1993)

2019The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just conceivable. 30 Trial Counsel certainly could have made better use of the firing pin evidence to support a self-defense claim, but without Coleman’s testimony, the most important piece of such an argument was still missing. 31 29 A628. 30 Neal v. State, 80 A.3d 935, 942 (Del. 2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 21 Based on his testimony during the evidentiary hearing, it is unclear if Trial Counsel was aware of the firing pin mark evidence at the time of the trial.

2013See Coles v. State, 959 A.2d 18, 22 (Del.2008) (affirming a conviction where the trial judge gave a self-defense instruction, but not addressing whether the trial judge limited the self-defense instruction to Murder in the First Degree or whether it applied to each charge); Fletcher v. State, 852 A.2d 908 , 2004 WL 1535728 , at *3-4 (Del.

2004See People v. Everette, 141 Ill.2d 147 , 152 Ill.Dec. 377 , 565 N.E.2d 1295, 1299 (Ill.1990) (observing that "a homicide defendant is entitled to an instruction on self-defense where there is some evidence in the record which, if believed by a jury, would support the defense” (emphasis added)). 14 .

2004See People v. Everette, 141 Ill.2d 147 , 152 Ill.Dec. 377 , 565 N.E.2d 1295, 1299 (Ill.1990) (observing that "a homicide defendant is entitled to an instruction on self-defense where there is some evidence in the record which, if believed by a jury, would support the defense” (emphasis added)). 14 .