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

11 Del. C. § 303 (2026)

Credible evidence to support defenses

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

(a) No defense defined by this Criminal Code or by another statute may be considered by the jury unless the court is satisfied that some credible evidence supporting the defense has been presented.

(b) Evidence supports a defense when it tends to establish the existence of each element of the defense.

(c) If some credible evidence supporting a defense is presented, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that the jury must acquit the defendant if they find that the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.

11 Del. C. 1953, §  303;  58 Del. Laws, c. 497, §  1;  59 Del. Laws, c. 547, §  1;  70 Del. Laws, c. 186, §  1; 
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Wright v. State, 953 A.2d 144 (Del. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wright v. State, 953 A.2d 144 (Del. 2008). “11 Del. C. § 303(c) relevantly provides: "If some credible evidence supporting a defense is presented, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that the jury must acquit the defendant if they find that the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.”
Ward v. State, 366 A.2d 1194 (Del. 1976). “” Defendant argues that there was evidence that the shooting was accidental and that the Trial Judge should have instructed the jury, under 11 Del.C. § 303(c), that an accidental shooting was a defense to the charge.”
McLaughlin v. Carroll, 270 F. Supp. 2d 490 (D. Del. 2003). “6 Argument VI) These unsupported conclusory allegations do not satisfy the requirement under Delaware law that the petitioner show some credible basis in the trial evidence entitling him to such lesser included instructions.”
Pendry v. State, 367 A.2d 627 (Del. 1976). “7 The record *632 contained no credible evidence that either defendant believed deadly force was necessary to protect himself against death or serious physical injury; therefore, under § 464 and 11 Del.C. § 303(c), neither Timothy nor Kenneth is entitled to a jury instruction on…”
Wilkerson v. State (Del. 2025). · cites it 5× “”39 The State alternatively argued that the proposed expert reports were not admissible under Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, and that the Rooks interview was not “some credible evidence” of involuntary intoxication, which was required under 11 Del. C. § 303 in order…”
State v. Smith (Del. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “”22 Delaware applies a subjective test to determine whether the defendant believed the use of force was necessary for protection.”
Ziejewski v. State of Delaware. (Del. Super. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “1975) (recognizing that the 1973 revisions to 11 Del. C. § 303 converted self-defense into a “simple defense”); 11 Del.”
Norman v. State (Del. 2024). “To the contrary, Norman admitted the following: Zink stayed in his truck after the crash and did not approach Norman’s vehicle;15 Norman could have left the area or waited for police to arrive but instead got out of his vehicle and approached Zink’s truck with the steering-wheel…”
Jacobs v. State (Del. 2026). “”14 Under 11 Del. C. § 303(a), “[n]o defense defined by this Criminal Code or by another 13 Id.”
— 11 Del. C. § 303(a) — 3 cases
McLaughlin v. Carroll, 270 F. Supp. 2d 490 (D. Del. 2003). “6 Argument VI) These unsupported conclusory allegations do not satisfy the requirement under Delaware law that the petitioner show some credible basis in the trial evidence entitling him to such lesser included instructions.”
Norman v. State (Del. 2024). “To the contrary, Norman admitted the following: Zink stayed in his truck after the crash and did not approach Norman’s vehicle;15 Norman could have left the area or waited for police to arrive but instead got out of his vehicle and approached Zink’s truck with the steering-wheel…”
Jacobs v. State (Del. 2026). “”14 Under 11 Del. C. § 303(a), “[n]o defense defined by this Criminal Code or by another 13 Id.”
— 11 Del. C. § 303(b) — 1 case
State v. Smith (Del. Super. Ct. 2017). “”22 Delaware applies a subjective test to determine whether the defendant believed the use of force was necessary for protection.”
— 11 Del. C. § 303(c) — 3 cases
Wright v. State, 953 A.2d 144 (Del. 2008). “11 Del. C. § 303(c) relevantly provides: "If some credible evidence supporting a defense is presented, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that the jury must acquit the defendant if they find that the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.”
Ward v. State, 366 A.2d 1194 (Del. 1976). “” Defendant argues that there was evidence that the shooting was accidental and that the Trial Judge should have instructed the jury, under 11 Del.C. § 303(c), that an accidental shooting was a defense to the charge.”
Pendry v. State, 367 A.2d 627 (Del. 1976). “7 The record *632 contained no credible evidence that either defendant believed deadly force was necessary to protect himself against death or serious physical injury; therefore, under § 464 and 11 Del.C. § 303(c), neither Timothy nor Kenneth is entitled to a jury instruction on…”
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.