reviews standard in Delaware

2023D.R.E. 701, which governs opinion testimony by lay persons, provides that [i]f a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. (25) Coverdale’s argument relies heavily upon our decision in Thomas v. State.17 In Thomas, we questioned “how the testimony of a police officer—or any other witness

2022(Nov. 22, 2006) (Letter Op. at 2) (citing Braxton v. State, 479 A.2d 831 (Del.1984) and Dixon v. State, 581 A.2d 1115 (Del.1990)). 15 Baker v. State, 906 A.2d 139, 148 (Del. 2006). 9 then the conduct is reviewed for harmless error.16 If neither action occurred, this Court reviews under the standard of plain error.17 When reviewing misconduct under the plain error standard, the first step in the plain error review requires the Court to examine whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred.18 If the Court determines that no misconduct occurred, the analysis ends.19 However, if the prosecutor did eng

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

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

2018It focused on the alleged unlawfulness of Cannon’s continued detention beyond the scope of the initial traffic stop. 6 Id. at B13. 7 Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280, 1285 (Del. 2008). 8 State v. Rollins, 922 A.2d 379, 382 (Del. 2007). 9 Lopez-Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1285 . 5 (12) Accordingly, this Court reviews this claim under the plain error standard of review.10 Under this standard, “the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”11 “[T]he doctrine of plain error is limited to material defects

2018It focused on the alleged unlawfulness of Cannon’s continued detention beyond the scope of the initial traffic stop. 6 Id. at B13. 7 Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280, 1285 (Del. 2008). 8 State v. Rollins, 922 A.2d 379, 382 (Del. 2007). 9 Lopez-Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1285 . 5 (12) Accordingly, this Court reviews this claim under the plain error standard of review.10 Under this standard, “the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”11 “[T]he doctrine of plain error is limited to material defects

2018It focused on the alleged unlawfulness of Cannon’s continued detention beyond the scope of the initial traffic stop. 6 Id. at B13. 7 Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280, 1285 (Del. 2008). 8 State v. Rollins, 922 A.2d 379, 382 (Del. 2007). 9 Lopez-Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1285 . 5 (12) Accordingly, this Court reviews this claim under the plain error standard of review.10 Under this standard, “the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”11 “[T]he doctrine of plain error is limited to material defects

2017In the absence of a request for an instruction, the Court reviews the instruction’s omission for plain 16 Id. at 39-40. 17 Id. at 41 (citing DeAngelis v. Harrison, 628 A.2d 77, 80 (Del. 1993)). 18 Id. (emphasis added) (citing DeAngelis, 628 A.2d at 80 ; Jardel C0., Inc. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518, 533 (Del. 1987)).

2017In the absence of a request for an instruction, the Court reviews the instruction’s omission for plain 16 Id. at 39-40. 17 Id. at 41 (citing DeAngelis v. Harrison, 628 A.2d 77, 80 (Del. 1993)). 18 Id. (emphasis added) (citing DeAngelis, 628 A.2d at 80 ; Jardel C0., Inc. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518, 533 (Del. 1987)).

2017In the absence of a request for an instruction, the Court reviews the instruction’s omission for plain 16 Id. at 39-40. 17 Id. at 41 (citing DeAngelis v. Harrison, 628 A.2d 77, 80 (Del. 1993)). 18 Id. (emphasis added) (citing DeAngelis, 628 A.2d at 80 ; Jardel C0., Inc. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518, 533 (Del. 1987)).

2017In the absence of a request for an instruction, the Court reviews the instruction’s omission for plain 16 Id. at 39-40. 17 Id. at 41 (citing DeAngelis v. Harrison, 628 A.2d 77, 80 (Del. 1993)). 18 Id. (emphasis added) (citing DeAngelis, 628 A.2d at 80 ; Jardel C0., Inc. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518, 533 (Del. 1987)).

2017In the absence of a request for an instruction, the Court reviews the instruction’s omission for plain 16 Id. at 39-40. 17 Id. at 41 (citing DeAngelis v. Harrison, 628 A.2d 77, 80 (Del. 1993)). 18 Id. (emphasis added) (citing DeAngelis, 628 A.2d at 80 ; Jardel C0., Inc. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518, 533 (Del. 1987)).