prosecutorial misconduct claim in Delaware

2026Feb. 3, 2026) (applying Suber to a prosecutorial misconduct claim). 61 Rasin v. State, 187 A.3d 1209 , 2018 WL 2355941 , at *2 (Del. 2018) (TABLE). 62 Caldwell v. State, 770 A.2d 522, 530 (Del. 2001) (quoting Saunders v. State, 602 A.2d 623, 624 (Del. 1984)). 63 Benson v. State, 105 A.3d 979, 984 (Del. 2014) (alterations in original) (quoting Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 204 (Del. 1980)). 17 Roberson tries to draw a comparison to the prosecutorial misconduct that occurred in Heald v. State. 64 There, we held that a prosecutor acted improperly by claiming that the reporting process “worked” be

2023The first step is a de novo review of the record to determine whether misconduct occurred.7 “If this Court finds no misconduct, the analysis ends.”8 If there is a finding of misconduct, we proceed to the second step to consider whether “the error complained of [was] so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”9 Review is “limited to material defects which are apparent on the 6 See Morales v. State, 133 A.3d 527, 529 (Del. 2016). 7 See id. at 529–30. 8 Id. at 530 . 9 Id. (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 19

2026Feb. 3, 2026) (engaging in plain error review of a prosecutorial misconduct claim). 10 supported by probable cause to search an individual’s CSLI.66 “In determining whether probable cause has been demonstrated, there must be a logical nexus between the items sought and the place to be searched.”67 “The law is well established that probable cause to search a location for—or, in the case of CSLI, to demand—particular items or records is demonstrated where a totality of circumstances indicates a ‘fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found’ thereby.”68 These determinatio

2026Feb. 3, 2026) (applying Suber to a prosecutorial misconduct claim). 61 Rasin v. State, 187 A.3d 1209 , 2018 WL 2355941 , at *2 (Del. 2018) (TABLE). 62 Caldwell v. State, 770 A.2d 522, 530 (Del. 2001) (quoting Saunders v. State, 602 A.2d 623, 624 (Del. 1984)). 63 Benson v. State, 105 A.3d 979, 984 (Del. 2014) (alterations in original) (quoting Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 204 (Del. 1980)). 17 Roberson tries to draw a comparison to the prosecutorial misconduct that occurred in Heald v. State. 64 There, we held that a prosecutor acted improperly by claiming that the reporting process “worked” be

2026Feb. 3, 2026) (applying Suber to a prosecutorial misconduct claim). 61 Rasin v. State, 187 A.3d 1209 , 2018 WL 2355941 , at *2 (Del. 2018) (TABLE). 62 Caldwell v. State, 770 A.2d 522, 530 (Del. 2001) (quoting Saunders v. State, 602 A.2d 623, 624 (Del. 1984)). 63 Benson v. State, 105 A.3d 979, 984 (Del. 2014) (alterations in original) (quoting Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 204 (Del. 1980)). 17 Roberson tries to draw a comparison to the prosecutorial misconduct that occurred in Heald v. State. 64 There, we held that a prosecutor acted improperly by claiming that the reporting process “worked” be

2026“This Court has also eschewed a hyper technical approach to the evaluation of the search warrant affidavit in favor of a common-sense interpretation.” Dorsey, 761 A.2d at 811 (quoting Gardner v. State, 567 A.2d 404, 409 (Del. 1989)). 70 Opening Br. 9. 71 Id. at 9–11. 11 what he believed would satisfy the warrant requirement – “if there was a surveillance photo or surveillance video around the time of the crime or at the time of the crime that showed [the defendant] in possession . . . of the phone . . . .”72 (18) Heck asserts that Dorsey v. State supports his position and controls here.73 We d

2026“This Court has also eschewed a hyper technical approach to the evaluation of the search warrant affidavit in favor of a common-sense interpretation.” Dorsey, 761 A.2d at 811 (quoting Gardner v. State, 567 A.2d 404, 409 (Del. 1989)). 70 Opening Br. 9. 71 Id. at 9–11. 11 what he believed would satisfy the warrant requirement – “if there was a surveillance photo or surveillance video around the time of the crime or at the time of the crime that showed [the defendant] in possession . . . of the phone . . . .”72 (18) Heck asserts that Dorsey v. State supports his position and controls here.73 We d

2026Feb. 3, 2026) (engaging in plain error review of a prosecutorial misconduct claim). 10 supported by probable cause to search an individual’s CSLI.66 “In determining whether probable cause has been demonstrated, there must be a logical nexus between the items sought and the place to be searched.”67 “The law is well established that probable cause to search a location for—or, in the case of CSLI, to demand—particular items or records is demonstrated where a totality of circumstances indicates a ‘fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found’ thereby.”68 These determinatio

2026Feb. 3, 2026) (engaging in plain error review of a prosecutorial misconduct claim). 10 supported by probable cause to search an individual’s CSLI.66 “In determining whether probable cause has been demonstrated, there must be a logical nexus between the items sought and the place to be searched.”67 “The law is well established that probable cause to search a location for—or, in the case of CSLI, to demand—particular items or records is demonstrated where a totality of circumstances indicates a ‘fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found’ thereby.”68 These determinatio

2026Feb. 3, 2026) (applying Suber to a prosecutorial misconduct claim). 61 Rasin v. State, 187 A.3d 1209 , 2018 WL 2355941 , at *2 (Del. 2018) (TABLE). 62 Caldwell v. State, 770 A.2d 522, 530 (Del. 2001) (quoting Saunders v. State, 602 A.2d 623, 624 (Del. 1984)). 63 Benson v. State, 105 A.3d 979, 984 (Del. 2014) (alterations in original) (quoting Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 204 (Del. 1980)). 17 Roberson tries to draw a comparison to the prosecutorial misconduct that occurred in Heald v. State. 64 There, we held that a prosecutor acted improperly by claiming that the reporting process “worked” be

2023The first step is a de novo review of the record to determine whether misconduct occurred.7 “If this Court finds no misconduct, the analysis ends.”8 If there is a finding of misconduct, we proceed to the second step to consider whether “the error complained of [was] so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”9 Review is “limited to material defects which are apparent on the 6 See Morales v. State, 133 A.3d 527, 529 (Del. 2016). 7 See id. at 529–30. 8 Id. at 530 . 9 Id. (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 19

2023The first step is a de novo review of the record to determine whether misconduct occurred.7 “If this Court finds no misconduct, the analysis ends.”8 If there is a finding of misconduct, we proceed to the second step to consider whether “the error complained of [was] so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”9 Review is “limited to material defects which are apparent on the 6 See Morales v. State, 133 A.3d 527, 529 (Del. 2016). 7 See id. at 529–30. 8 Id. at 530 . 9 Id. (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 19

2023The first step is a de novo review of the record to determine whether misconduct occurred.7 “If this Court finds no misconduct, the analysis ends.”8 If there is a finding of misconduct, we proceed to the second step to consider whether “the error complained of [was] so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”9 Review is “limited to material defects which are apparent on the 6 See Morales v. State, 133 A.3d 527, 529 (Del. 2016). 7 See id. at 529–30. 8 Id. at 530 . 9 Id. (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 19

2023The first step is a de novo review of the record to determine whether misconduct occurred.7 “If this Court finds no misconduct, the analysis ends.”8 If there is a finding of misconduct, we proceed to the second step to consider whether “the error complained of [was] so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”9 Review is “limited to material defects which are apparent on the 6 See Morales v. State, 133 A.3d 527, 529 (Del. 2016). 7 See id. at 529–30. 8 Id. at 530 . 9 Id. (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 19

2023The first step is a de novo review of the record to determine whether misconduct occurred.7 “If this Court finds no misconduct, the analysis ends.”8 If there is a finding of misconduct, we proceed to the second step to consider whether “the error complained of [was] so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”9 Review is “limited to material defects which are apparent on the 6 See Morales v. State, 133 A.3d 527, 529 (Del. 2016). 7 See id. at 529–30. 8 Id. at 530 . 9 Id. (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 19

2023The first step is a de novo review of the record to determine whether misconduct occurred.7 “If this Court finds no misconduct, the analysis ends.”8 If there is a finding of misconduct, we proceed to the second step to consider whether “the error complained of [was] so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”9 Review is “limited to material defects which are apparent on the 6 See Morales v. State, 133 A.3d 527, 529 (Del. 2016). 7 See id. at 529–30. 8 Id. at 530 . 9 Id. (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 19

2023The first step is a de novo review of the record to determine whether misconduct occurred.7 “If this Court finds no misconduct, the analysis ends.”8 If there is a finding of misconduct, we proceed to the second step to consider whether “the error complained of [was] so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”9 Review is “limited to material defects which are apparent on the 6 See Morales v. State, 133 A.3d 527, 529 (Del. 2016). 7 See id. at 529–30. 8 Id. at 530 . 9 Id. (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 19

2023The first step is a de novo review of the record to determine whether misconduct occurred.7 “If this Court finds no misconduct, the analysis ends.”8 If there is a finding of misconduct, we proceed to the second step to consider whether “the error complained of [was] so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”9 Review is “limited to material defects which are apparent on the 6 See Morales v. State, 133 A.3d 527, 529 (Del. 2016). 7 See id. at 529–30. 8 Id. at 530 . 9 Id. (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 19

2020Under both standards, we first engage 27 Baker v. State, 906 A.2d 139, 148 (Del. 2006). 12 in a de novo review to determine whether the prosecutor’s actions rise to the level of misconduct.28 If we decide that no misconduct occurred, the analysis ends; only if we find misconduct do we proceed to the plain error and harmless error analysis. 29 If we find misconduct and the claim was not fairly considered below because a timely objection was not made and the judge failed to address the conduct sua sponte, we engage in a plain error analysis and apply the standard announced in Wainwright v. State

2018Defendant contends in his Second Motion that his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct and insufficient evidence.34 On the First Motion, the Commissioner carefully considered and determined that the prosecutorial misconduct claim was without merit35 and the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under the applicable standard. 36 The Superior Court adopted the “Commissioner’s Well-reasoned report and recommendation,”37 and the Superior Court Order was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court.38 33 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 555 (Del.

2014R. 61(i)(3)(A)-(B). 22 Compare Hainey, 945 A.2d at 1167 (Del. 2008) (holding that where defendant failed to raise a prosecutorial misconduct claim at trial or on direct appeal it was procedurally barred). 23 Jackson, 770 A.2d at 515 ; Michael, 529 A.2d at 756 (citing Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)). 24 Michael, 529 A.2d 752, 756 (Del. 1987) (citing Van Arsdall v. State, 524 A.2d 3 (Del. 1987)). 25 Id. 11 Delaware probation.

2014Hainey v. State, 945 A.2d 1167 (Del. 2008) (holding that where defendant failed to raise a prosecutorial misconduct claim at trial or on direct appeal it was procedurally barred). 78 11 Del.

2014R. 61(i)(3)(A)-(B). 22 Compare Hainey, 945 A.2d at 1167 (Del. 2008) (holding that where defendant failed to raise a prosecutorial misconduct claim at trial or on direct appeal it was procedurally barred). 23 Jackson, 770 A.2d at 515 ; Michael, 529 A.2d at 756 (citing Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)). 24 Michael, 529 A.2d 752, 756 (Del. 1987) (citing Van Arsdall v. State, 524 A.2d 3 (Del. 1987)). 25 Id. 11 Delaware probation.

2014R. 61(i)(3)(A)-(B). 22 Compare Hainey, 945 A.2d at 1167 (Del. 2008) (holding that where defendant failed to raise a prosecutorial misconduct claim at trial or on direct appeal it was procedurally barred). 23 Jackson, 770 A.2d at 515 ; Michael, 529 A.2d at 756 (citing Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)). 24 Michael, 529 A.2d 752, 756 (Del. 1987) (citing Van Arsdall v. State, 524 A.2d 3 (Del. 1987)). 25 Id. 11 Delaware probation.