11 Del. C. § 206
Method of prosecution when conduct constitutes more than 1 offense
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) When the same conduct of a defendant may establish the commission of more than 1 offense, the defendant may be prosecuted for each offense. The defendant’s liability for more than 1 offense may be considered by the jury whenever the State’s case against the defendant for each offense is established in accordance with § 301 of this title. The defendant may not, however, be convicted of more than 1 offense if:
(1) One offense is included in the other, as defined in subsection (b) of this section; or
(2) One offense consists only of an attempt to commit the other; or
(3) Inconsistent findings of fact are required to establish the commission of the offenses.
(b) A defendant may be convicted of an offense included in an offense charged in the indictment or information. An offense is so included when:
(1) It is established by the proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged; or
(2) It consists of an attempt to commit the offense charged or to commit an offense otherwise included therein; or
(3) It involves the same result but differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less serious injury or risk of injury to the same person, property or public interest or a lesser kind of culpability suffices to establish its commission.
(c) The court is not obligated to charge the jury with respect to an included offense unless there is a rational basis in the evidence for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting the defendant of the included offense.
11 Del. C. 1953, § 206; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1;Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Rivera v. State
Rivera v. State (1976)
“Thus, judgment of manslaughter, a lesser offense included within murder in the second degree under 11 Del.C. § 206(b)(3), 5 and sentence thereon, will resolve this issue in the defendant’s favor.”
Flamer v. Chaffinch (1993)
“Discussion The Respondent contends that this issue is not reviewable by this Court because the state courts have determined the appropriateness of permitting a person to be convicted of both the robbery and felony-murder when appropriate pursuant to 11 Del.C. § 206. Flamer…”
Stigars v. State (1996)
“be convicted of more than one offense if: (1) One offense is included in the other, as defined in subsection (b) of this section; .”
Fuentes v. State (1975)
“11 Del.C. § 206(b) (3) provides: “(b) A defendant may be convicted of an offense included in an offense charged in the indictment or information.”
State v. Willis (1995)
“Subsection (b) of 11 Del.C. § 206 Provides Three Alternative Tests for Determining Whether an Offense is a Lesser-included Offense This Court must now consider whether Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle 6 is a lesser-included offense of Robbery First Degree.”
McLaughlin v. Carroll (2003)
“Delaware case-law incorporates this requirement and specifies four requirements to determine when a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on lesser included offenses: (1) the defendant made a proper request; (2) the lesser included offense contains some, but not all, of…”
State v. Adams (1976)
“That section permits prosecution for more than one offense when the same conduct establishes more than one offense, unless (1) one of the offenses is included in the other, or (2) one offense is an attempt to commit the other, or (3) inconsistent findings of fact required to…”
Pendry v. State (1976)
“11 Del.C. § 206(b) (3) provides: “(b) A defendant may be convicted of an offense included in an offense charged in the indictment or information.”
State v. Shahan (1975)
“In opposition to this contention, the Attorney General relies upon 11 Del.C. § 206(b)(2), which permits a defendant to be convicted of an attempt to commit the offense charged in the indictment.”
Burnham v. State (2000)
“3 In this case, however, the jury acquitted Burnham on the stalking charge and might have acquitted on the aggravated harassment charge, as well, had it been instructed on harassment.”
Clark v. State (2020)
“Clark has yet to explain how the offense that he says should be the sole focus of our review of the sufficiency of the evidence—an uncharged attempt to assault Kyle, entirely divorced from the actual shooting of Teddy Jackson—falls within this statutory definition of included…”
White v. State (2020)
“”65 Where the charges derive from two different statutes “the question is whether, both sections being violated by the same act, the accused committed two offenses or only one” for which the inquiry is “whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.”66…”
— 11 Del. C. § 206(0) — 1 case
State v. Rasin (2018)
— 11 Del. C. § 206(a) — 5 cases
Ryle v. State (2022)
State v. Melendez (2023)
State v. Manuel (2025)
State v. Caudle (2025)
Thompson v. State (2015)
— 11 Del. C. § 206(a)(1) — 3 cases
Jones v. State (2020)
State v. Manuel (2025)
State v. Caudle (2025)
— 11 Del. C. § 206(b) — 9 cases
Fuentes v. State (1975)
“11 Del.C. § 206(b) (3) provides: “(b) A defendant may be convicted of an offense included in an offense charged in the indictment or information.”
Pendry v. State (1976)
“11 Del.C. § 206(b) (3) provides: “(b) A defendant may be convicted of an offense included in an offense charged in the indictment or information.”
Smiley v. State (2024)
Dixon v. State (2015)
State v. MacDonough (2018)
— 11 Del. C. § 206(b)(1) — 3 cases
State v. Willis (1995)
“Subsection (b) of 11 Del.C. § 206 Provides Three Alternative Tests for Determining Whether an Offense is a Lesser-included Offense This Court must now consider whether Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle 6 is a lesser-included offense of Robbery First Degree.”
Clark v. State (2020)
“Clark has yet to explain how the offense that he says should be the sole focus of our review of the sufficiency of the evidence—an uncharged attempt to assault Kyle, entirely divorced from the actual shooting of Teddy Jackson—falls within this statutory definition of included…”
Jones v. State (2020)
— 11 Del. C. § 206(b)(2) — 3 cases
State v. Shahan (1975)
“In opposition to this contention, the Attorney General relies upon 11 Del.C. § 206(b)(2), which permits a defendant to be convicted of an attempt to commit the offense charged in the indictment.”
State v. Salaberrios (2020)
Kegler v. State (2024)
— 11 Del. C. § 206(b)(3) — 5 cases
Rivera v. State (1976)
“Thus, judgment of manslaughter, a lesser offense included within murder in the second degree under 11 Del.C. § 206(b)(3), 5 and sentence thereon, will resolve this issue in the defendant’s favor.”
Fuentes v. State (1975)
“11 Del.C. § 206(b) (3) provides: “(b) A defendant may be convicted of an offense included in an offense charged in the indictment or information.”
Pendry v. State (1976)
“11 Del.C. § 206(b) (3) provides: “(b) A defendant may be convicted of an offense included in an offense charged in the indictment or information.”
Marvel v. State (2019)
State v. Ryle (2021)
— 11 Del. C. § 206(c) — 11 cases
McLaughlin v. Carroll (2003)
“Delaware case-law incorporates this requirement and specifies four requirements to determine when a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on lesser included offenses: (1) the defendant made a proper request; (2) the lesser included offense contains some, but not all, of…”
Burnham v. State (2000)
“3 In this case, however, the jury acquitted Burnham on the stalking charge and might have acquitted on the aggravated harassment charge, as well, had it been instructed on harassment.”
El-Abbadi v. State (2024)
Fleetwood v. State (2016)
State v. Rowan (2017)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.