Del. C. » Title 11 — Delaware Criminal Code · CHAPTER 3. Proving and Disproving Criminal Guilt · Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Delaware Code

11 Del. C. § 301 (2026)

State’s prima facie case; proof beyond reasonable doubt

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In any prosecution for an offense, a prima facie case for the State consists of some credible evidence tending to prove the existence of each element of the offense.

(b) No person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

(c) In any prosecution for any compound crime, including but not limited to first degree murder under § 636(a)(2) or (a)(6) of this title or for second degree murder under § 635(2) of this title, the corpus delicti of the underlying felony need not be proved independently of a defendant’s extrajudicial statement.

11 Del. C. 1953, §  301;  58 Del. Laws, c. 497, §  1;  70 Del. Laws, c. 463, §  1; 
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Vogel v. State, 426 So. 2d 863 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vogel v. State, 426 So. 2d 863 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980). “11 Del.C. § 301 . It is generally accepted that in charging a drug violation, the indictment must specify the drug involved.”
State v. Adams, 364 A.2d 1237 (Del. Super. Ct. 1976). “11 Del.C. § 301. It is generally accepted that in charging a drug violation, the indictment must specify the drug involved.”
State v. Riley, 256 A.2d 273 (Del. Super. Ct. 1969). · cites it 2× “Delaware’s abortion law reads as follows: “Whoever, with the intent to procure the miscarriage of any pregnant woman, or any woman supposed by such person to be pregnant, unless the same is necessary to preserve her life, administers, advises, prescribes or causes to be taken by…”
Bethea v. Delaware, 17 F. Supp. 3d 407 (D. Del. 2014). “The case proceeded to a full trial after which the trial judge found plaintiff husband not guilty. Since the Justice of the Peace did not dismiss at the close of the State’s case, there was a prima facie case under Delaware law, 11 Del.”
State v. Topolski (Del. Super. Ct. 2023). · cites it 4× “5 each charge, pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 301(a), and that continued detention at the DPC was therefore authorized under 11 Del.”
State of Delaware v. Daniel S. Roth & Daniel T. Stote (Del. Ct. Com. Pl. 2017). · cites it 2× “”15 The Court may consider all direct and circumstantial evidence in determining whether the State has met its burden as required by 11 Del. C. § 301. As trier of fact, the Court is the sole judge of the credibility of each fact witness and any other information provided.”
State v. Hearne (Del. Super. Ct. 2023). · cites it 2× “85 He rubbed her genitals with his hand and made her touch his genitals.”
Kelsch v. State (Del. Super. Ct. 2016). “16 11 Del. C. § 301(b) (―No person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Kelsch v. State (Del. Super. Ct. 2016). “19 11 Del. C. § 301(b) (―No person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
McDonald v. State (Del. 2016). “Bell, the Superior Court held that despite the State’s failure to identify the defendant in court, defense counsel’s use of the defendant’s full name in the opening statement, coupled with other identification evidence, was 2 11 Del.”
State of Delaware v. Clinton Harris (Del. Ct. Com. Pl. 2017). “3 See 11 Del. C. § 301. witnesses. Therefore, in its capacity as the sole trier of fact, the Court will recite the relevant facts as it found them to exist, based upon the credibility of the witnesses.”
State v. Wilkerson (Del. Super. Ct. 2021). “The State counters that the jury was being lenient, and that, notwithstanding the acquittal and 5 11 Del. C. §301(b). In this statute, the General Assembly chose to codify what is widely recognized as a federal constitutional mandate.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— 11 Del. C. § 301(a) — 3 cases
State v. Topolski (Del. Super. Ct. 2023). “5 each charge, pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 301(a), and that continued detention at the DPC was therefore authorized under 11 Del.”
State v. Herbert (Del. Super. Ct. 2022).
State v. Hearne (Del. Super. Ct. 2023). “85 He rubbed her genitals with his hand and made her touch his genitals.”
— 11 Del. C. § 301(b) — 5 cases
Kelsch v. State (Del. Super. Ct. 2016). “16 11 Del. C. § 301(b) (―No person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Kelsch v. State (Del. Super. Ct. 2016). “19 11 Del. C. § 301(b) (―No person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Wilkerson (Del. Super. Ct. 2021). “The State counters that the jury was being lenient, and that, notwithstanding the acquittal and 5 11 Del. C. §301(b). In this statute, the General Assembly chose to codify what is widely recognized as a federal constitutional mandate.”
Pierce v. State (Del. 2022).
State v. Hearne (Del. Super. Ct. 2023). “85 He rubbed her genitals with his hand and made her touch his genitals.”
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.