Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Morse v. Stategreen1 sentence2025“Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.”127 However, “[t]his evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” 128 (82) When considering the admissibility of evidence offered under Rule 404(b), the trial court should apply the guidelines we set forth in the six Getz factors governing admissibility.129 When considering the fif | 1 | 1 |
Pope v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Nor is the Court persuaded that such evidence should be admitted under the Inextricably Intertwined Doctrine. 66 State’s Mot. in Limine, at 21-23, D.I. 31. 67 Id. at 21 (quoting State v. Pope, 632 A.2d 73, 76 (Del. 1993)). 68 Id. at 23. 13 THEREFORE, the State’s Motion to Admit the Prior Bad Acts is DENIED. 2024Nor is the Court persuaded that such evidence should be admitted under the Inextricably Intertwined Doctrine. 66 State’s Mot. in Limine, at 21-23, D.I. 31. 67 Id. at 21 (quoting State v. Pope, 632 A.2d 73, 76 (Del. 1993)). 68 Id. at 23. 13 THEREFORE, the State’s Motion to Admit the Prior Bad Acts is DENIED. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Matlockgreen2 sentences1987Police may conduct a warrantless search if consent is obtained from a third party who possesses “common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.” United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 , 94 S.Ct. 988, 993 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242, 250 (1974). 1987Police may conduct a warrantless search if consent is obtained from a third party who possesses “common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.” United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 , 94 S.Ct. 988, 993 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242, 250 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Deshields v. State
green
2 sentences2024Getz’s fifth factor requires the Court to assess whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect under D.R.E. 403 considering the Deshields factors. 64 The Court concludes as to the Deshields factors: 1) the identity of the suspect is wholly disputed; (2) video surveillance, witness testimony, clothing descriptions, and fingerprint identifications are adequate means of proving the prior conduct; (3) the evidence is strongly probative of Lecompte’s identity, making it more probable that Lecompte committed the charged crimes; (4) the State does n 2024Getz’s fifth factor requires the Court to assess whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect under D.R.E. 403 considering the Deshields factors. 64 The Court concludes as to the Deshields factors: 1) the identity of the suspect is wholly disputed; (2) video surveillance, witness testimony, clothing descriptions, and fingerprint identifications are adequate means of proving the prior conduct; (3) the evidence is strongly probative of Lecompte’s identity, making it more probable that Lecompte committed the charged crimes; (4) the State does n | 4 | 2021–2025 |
Getz v. State
green
1 sentence2025“Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.”127 However, “[t]his evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” 128 (82) When considering the admissibility of evidence offered under Rule 404(b), the trial court should apply the guidelines we set forth in the six Getz factors governing admissibility.129 When considering the fif | 1 | 2025–2025 |