plain error is limited to material doctrine in Delaware

2025We conclude by addressing Tucker’s claim relating to the jury instruction.34 (18) Tucker argues that the State deprived him of his right to a “valid indictment” when it charged him under Counts Three and Four with an offense under the wrong version of the statute defining unlawful sexual contact in the second degree and alleged that the sexual contact occurred when T.A. was older than the statutory age range for that offense.35 Because Tucker did not preserve this claim by making a timely objection, we review for plain error. (19) For an error to be plain it must be so clearly prejudicial to s

2024Sept. 24, 2021) (TABLE) (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986)). “[T]he doctrine 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 substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.” Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 19 Hunter v. State, 815 A.2d 730, 738 (Del. 2002) (quoting Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d 1345, 1355 (Del. 1991)); see also Williams v. State, 2005 WL 2414375 , at *2 (Del.

2026Generally, we review an insufficiency-of-evidence claim to determine whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.5 Because Best did not move for a judgment of acquittal in the Superior Court, we review this claim for plain error.6 “[T]he doctrine 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 substantial right, or which clearly sho

2026After careful review, we find no merit to these arguments. 3 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 7 (20) Generally, we review an insufficiency of evidence claim to determine whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.4 Because Flowers did not move for a judgment of acquittal in the Superior Court, we review this claim for plain error.5 “[T]he doctrine of plain error is limited to material defects which are apparent on the

2022Furthermore, the doctrine 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 substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.20 If the Court finds plain error occurred under the Wainwright standard, the Court will reverse without reaching the third step of the analysis.21 If misconduct would not warrant reversal under Wainwright, the Court applies Hunter as “the third analytical step and consider whether the prosecutor's statements are rep

2022Furthermore, the doctrine 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 substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.20 If the Court finds plain error occurred under the Wainwright standard, the Court will reverse without reaching the third step of the analysis.21 If misconduct would not warrant reversal under Wainwright, the Court applies Hunter as “the third analytical step and consider whether the prosecutor's statements are rep

2016This appeal followed. (5) Because Lolley failed to preserve in the Superior Court his objection to the timing of the prayer conference, we review for plain error. 1 “[T]he doctrine 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 substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.” 2 (6) Lolley argues that it was plain error for the Superior Court to hold the prayer conference after closing arguments, because it did not give his counsel an o

2015Ct. R. 8. 17 Restrepo, 2014 WL 1724755 , at *2 (finding there was probable cause even if the affidavit had said that Wolf had been communicating on February 14 with “a number of individuals, including ‘purecolombianblood,’ which a Google search linked to” Restrepo). 18 Id. at *2-3. 19 Blake v. State, 65 A.3d 557, 562 (Del. 2013) (“[T]he doctrine 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 substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injusti

2026Ct. R. 8; Swan v. State, 820 A.2d 342, 358 (Del. 2003). 7 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 6 (15) There was sufficient evidence to sustain Best’s convictions for PFBPP,8 drug dealing,9 drug possession,10 PABPP,11 and possession of drug paraphernalia.12 This evidence included: (i) the presence of a firearm, firearm ammunition, Best’s Delaware identification card, and paperwork with Best’s name in one bedroom; (ii) the presence of 69 grams of cocaine, a digital scale, small baggies, and a cutting agent in that same bedroom; (iii) Best’s statement to police that he acquired t

2026Ct. R. 8; Swan v. State, 820 A.2d 342, 358 (Del. 2003). 6 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 7 11 Del.

2025We conclude by addressing Tucker’s claim relating to the jury instruction.34 (18) Tucker argues that the State deprived him of his right to a “valid indictment” when it charged him under Counts Three and Four with an offense under the wrong version of the statute defining unlawful sexual contact in the second degree and alleged that the sexual contact occurred when T.A. was older than the statutory age range for that offense.35 Because Tucker did not preserve this claim by making a timely objection, we review for plain error. (19) For an error to be plain it must be so clearly prejudicial to s

2014Where a defendant fails to request a specific jury instruction, a claim that the trial court erred by not offering the instruction is reviewed for plain error. 45 “Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.” 46 “Furthermore, the doctrine 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 substantial right, or whi

2024As a general rule, the Court will not 2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926 , 927–28 (Del. 1996). 5 consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.3 Typically, an ineffective-assistance claim is pursued through a motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and is adjudicated on the basis of the record developed during the postconviction proceeding.4 (13) Gantier did not move for a judgment of acquittal in the Superior Court, so we review his insufficient-evidence claim for plain error.5 “[T]he doctrine of pla

2024As a general rule, the Court will not 2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926 , 927–28 (Del. 1996). 5 consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.3 Typically, an ineffective-assistance claim is pursued through a motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and is adjudicated on the basis of the record developed during the postconviction proceeding.4 (13) Gantier did not move for a judgment of acquittal in the Superior Court, so we review his insufficient-evidence claim for plain error.5 “[T]he doctrine of pla

2018“To warrant review on appeal when the issue has not been fairly presented [to the trial court], there must be ‘plain error.’”1 “Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the 1 Zhurbin v. State, 104 A.3d 108, 113 (Del. 2014). 2 fairness and integrity of the trial process.”2 “[T]he doctrine 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 substantial right, or

2017Aiken also contends for the first time on appeal that Karr’s camping trailer was a vehicle, and that Aiken should have standing to challenge the search as a “vehicle search.” Because the argument that Karr’s camper was a vehicle was not fairly presented to the trial court, it is reviewed for plain error.17 “Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.” 18 “[T]he doctrine of plain error is limited to material defects which are apparent on the 16 App. to App

2026After careful review, we find no merit to these arguments. 3 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 7 (20) Generally, we review an insufficiency of evidence claim to determine whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.4 Because Flowers did not move for a judgment of acquittal in the Superior Court, we review this claim for plain error.5 “[T]he doctrine of plain error is limited to material defects which are apparent on the

2024As a general rule, the Court will not 2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926 , 927–28 (Del. 1996). 5 consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.3 Typically, an ineffective-assistance claim is pursued through a motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and is adjudicated on the basis of the record developed during the postconviction proceeding.4 (13) Gantier did not move for a judgment of acquittal in the Superior Court, so we review his insufficient-evidence claim for plain error.5 “[T]he doctrine of pla

2022State Univ., 47 A.3d 472, 479 (Del. 2012)). 138 Shawe I, 157 A.3d at 168. 139 Smith, 47 A.3d at 479 (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986)). 140 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 32 As discussed above, the Court of Chancery’s contempt findings in this case contain a stark inconsistency: when fairly presented with the relevant arguments in response to Ross Aronstam’s December 2020 contempt motion, the Chancellor concluded that he could not hold Shawe in contempt without evidence that Shawe personally filed or directed the New York lawsuit that violated the Court’s orders.141

2017State Univ., 47 A.3d 472, 479 (Del. 2012).

2016Even where a plea agreement exists, the State is entitled to support its plea agreement with the factors relevant to the reasonableness of the sentence recommendation.6 Although the State could have shown more restraint in its comments at sentencing, under a plain 3 Id. at *2 (reviewing claim that prosecutor breached plea agreement at sentencing where defendant did not object at sentencing under plain error standard of review); Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986) (“Failure to make an objection [below] constitutes a waiver of the defendant’s right to raise that issue on appeal,

2016Although some of the State’s comments at sentencing were speculative and more restraint might have been shown, under a plain error standard of review we find that the State’s comments failed to rise to the level of subverting the integrity of the plea bargaining process.12 8 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986) (“Failure to make an objection [below] constitutes a waiver of the defendant’s right to raise that issue on appeal, unless the error is plain.”); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 , 139–43 (2009) (plain error review appropriate for government’s breach of pl

2016Even where a plea agreement exists, the State is entitled to support its plea agreement with the factors relevant to the reasonableness of the sentence recommendation.6 Although the State could have shown more restraint in its comments at sentencing, under a plain 3 Id. at *2 (reviewing claim that prosecutor breached plea agreement at sentencing where defendant did not object at sentencing under plain error standard of review); Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986) (“Failure to make an objection [below] constitutes a waiver of the defendant’s right to raise that issue on appeal,

2016Although some of the State’s comments at sentencing were speculative and more restraint might have been shown, under a plain error standard of review we find that the State’s comments failed to rise to the level of subverting the integrity of the plea bargaining process.12 8 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986) (“Failure to make an objection [below] constitutes a waiver of the defendant’s right to raise that issue on appeal, unless the error is plain.”); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 , 139–43 (2009) (plain error review appropriate for government’s breach of pl

2016This appeal followed. (5) Because Lolley failed to preserve in the Superior Court his objection to the timing of the prayer conference, we review for plain error. 1 “[T]he doctrine 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 substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.” 2 (6) Lolley argues that it was plain error for the Superior Court to hold the prayer conference after closing arguments, because it did not give his counsel an o

2016This appeal followed. (5) Because Lolley failed to preserve in the Superior Court his objection to the timing of the prayer conference, we review for plain error. 1 “[T]he doctrine 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 substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.” 2 (6) Lolley argues that it was plain error for the Superior Court to hold the prayer conference after closing arguments, because it did not give his counsel an o

2024Sept. 24, 2021) (TABLE) (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986)). “[T]he doctrine 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 substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.” Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 19 Hunter v. State, 815 A.2d 730, 738 (Del. 2002) (quoting Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d 1345, 1355 (Del. 1991)); see also Williams v. State, 2005 WL 2414375 , at *2 (Del.

1995Robertson, 596 A.2d at 1356 (quoting Wainwright v. State, Del.Supr., 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (internal citations omitted), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 869 , 107 S.Ct. 236 , 93 L.Ed.2d 161 (1986)).

2026After careful review, we find no merit to these arguments. 3 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 7 (20) Generally, we review an insufficiency of evidence claim to determine whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.4 Because Flowers did not move for a judgment of acquittal in the Superior Court, we review this claim for plain error.5 “[T]he doctrine of plain error is limited to material defects which are apparent on the

2024As a general rule, the Court will not 2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926 , 927–28 (Del. 1996). 5 consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.3 Typically, an ineffective-assistance claim is pursued through a motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and is adjudicated on the basis of the record developed during the postconviction proceeding.4 (13) Gantier did not move for a judgment of acquittal in the Superior Court, so we review his insufficient-evidence claim for plain error.5 “[T]he doctrine of pla

2023“Furthermore, the doctrine 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 substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). 8 party “should submit specific written requests for jury instructions in order to present its contentions to the trial court and preserve these contentions for a possible appeal.” 19 Here, the record shows, and Bowie concedes, that the inadvertent omission by the tr

2014Where a defendant fails to request a specific jury instruction, a claim that the trial court erred by not offering the instruction is reviewed for plain error. 45 “Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.” 46 “Furthermore, the doctrine 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 substantial right, or whi

2025Super. 1982)). 10 clearly deprive an accused of a substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.”37 (20) Delaware’s Constitution enshrines the right to be prosecuted by indictment and not to be prosecuted for the same offense more than once.38 An indictment should put a defendant on notice of the charges and “effectively bar subsequent prosecutions for the same offense.”39 Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 7, the indictment “shall be a plain, concise and definite statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged . . . [and] shall state for each count the official

2024He additionally contends for the first time that the instruction’s wording violated the Delaware Constitution. 5 ANALYSIS (12) “This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision to issue a jury instruction over the defendant’s objection.”1 This Court also considers whether the instructions, examined as a whole, correctly stated the law.2 When, however, objections to jury instructions are not fairly preserved in the trial court, we will “review[] the content of jury instructions for plain error.”3 “Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicia

2024He additionally contends for the first time that the instruction’s wording violated the Delaware Constitution. 5 ANALYSIS (12) “This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision to issue a jury instruction over the defendant’s objection.”1 This Court also considers whether the instructions, examined as a whole, correctly stated the law.2 When, however, objections to jury instructions are not fairly preserved in the trial court, we will “review[] the content of jury instructions for plain error.”3 “Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicia

2024Sept. 24, 2021) (TABLE) (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986)). “[T]he doctrine 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 substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.” Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100 . 19 Hunter v. State, 815 A.2d 730, 738 (Del. 2002) (quoting Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d 1345, 1355 (Del. 1991)); see also Williams v. State, 2005 WL 2414375 , at *2 (Del.

2024Sept. 29, 2005). 20 See Davis v. State, 706 A.2d 523, 525 (Del. 1998) (citations omitted) (“Evidence of a defendant’s guilt may be proven exclusively through circumstantial evidence since this Court does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence in a conviction context.”) 21 Dryden v. State, 945 A.2d 594 , 2008 WL 555956 , at *1 (Del. 2008) (TABLE) (citation omitted). 6 (11) Corporal Fiore’s testimony lays plain that Steele was exhibiting indicia of alcohol or drug impairment throughout the entirety of their interaction.

2024He additionally contends for the first time that the instruction’s wording violated the Delaware Constitution. 5 ANALYSIS (12) “This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision to issue a jury instruction over the defendant’s objection.”1 This Court also considers whether the instructions, examined as a whole, correctly stated the law.2 When, however, objections to jury instructions are not fairly preserved in the trial court, we will “review[] the content of jury instructions for plain error.”3 “Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicia

2023Ct. R. 8; Weber v. State, 38 A.3d 271, 276 (Del.

2023Generally, we review an insufficiency of evidence claim to determine whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.2 Because Simmons did not move for acquittal in the Superior Court, we review his claim for plain error.3 “[T]he doctrine 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 substantial right, or which clearly show manifest i