Del. C. » Title 11 — Criminal Procedure Generally · CHAPTER 35. Witnesses and Evidence · Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Delaware Code

11 Del. C. § 3507 (2026)

Use of prior statements as affirmative evidence

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

(a) In a criminal prosecution, the voluntary out-of-court prior statement of a witness who is present and subject to cross-examination may be used as affirmative evidence with substantive independent testimonial value.

(b) The rule in subsection (a) of this section shall apply regardless of whether the witness’ in-court testimony is consistent with the prior statement or not. The rule shall likewise apply with or without a showing of surprise by the introducing party.

(c) This section shall not be construed to affect the rules concerning the admission of statements of defendants or of those who are codefendants in the same trial. This section shall also not apply to the statements of those whom to cross-examine would be to subject to possible self-incrimination.

11 Del. C. 1953, §  3509;  57 Del. Laws, c. 525.; 
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 99 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1960–2026 · leading case: Flonnory v. State, 893 A.2d 507 (Del. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Flonnory v. State, 893 A.2d 507 (Del. 2006). · cites it 3× “Admission of Akhee Flonnory’s § 3507 Statements Before trial Flonnory moved for an Order precluding the State from introducing pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 3507, 2 any out-of-court interrogations, conversation, dialogues and/or declarations reportedly involving Akhee Flonnory…”
Morse v. State, 120 A.3d 1 (Del. 2015). · cites it 4× “” 7 See 11 Del. C. § 3507. 2 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 12, 2012, Melvin, his wife, Pauline Morse (“Pauline”), then eleven- year old A.”
Dwayne Weeks v. Robert Snyder, Warden Attorney Gen. of the State of Delaware, 219 F.3d 245 (3rd Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “See 11 Del. C. § 3507. 2 As stated by Weeks, “if Govan had refused to testify and therefore could not be cross-examined, his out-of-court statements inculpating Weeks would have been inadmissible against Weeks.”
Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316 (Del. 2015). “57 The voluntariness requirement 54 There is some confusion in the briefs and in the record regarding which party actually introduced the tapes, but Trial Counsel made the decision to play the tapes for the jury.”
State v. Flowers, 150 A.3d 276 (Del. 2016). “At Flowers’ trial, the State admitted the pretrial taped statements of five witnesses pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 3507. A review of testimony of Vernon Mays, Matthew Chamblee, Ronetta Sudler, Tysheik McDougall, and Othello Predeoux reflects that none of the witnesses Were asked by…”
Cole v. State, 922 A.2d 364 (Del. 2007). · cites it 2× “The State then interrupted her testimony to present her earlier out of court statement to Detective Chaffin under 11 Del. C. § 3507. [20] At that time, Johnson objected to this testimony and claimed that its introduction violated his confrontation rights.”
Hall v. State, 788 A.2d 118 (Del. 2001). “See 11 DelC. § 3507 (permitting the introduction of a witness’ voluntary, out-of-court prior statement as substantive evidence in the case so long as the witness is "present and subject to cross-examination”).”
Hatcher v. State, 337 A.2d 30 (Del. 1975). · cites it 3× “He argues that the State did not produce sufficient evidence to prove that he had possession of the drugs and that an out-of-court statement of a witness introduced by the prosecution under 11 Del.C. § 3507 (formerly, § 3509) was involuntarily made.”
Russell v. State, 5 A.3d 622 (Del. 2010). “11 Del. C. § 3507 and 11 Del. C. § 3513(b)(1) both require a party to establish an adequate foundation before a pretrial out of court statement of a trial witness can be admitted into evidence.”
Taylor v. State, 23 A.3d 851 (Del. 2011). “11 Del. C. § 3507 Use of prior statements as affirmative evidence.”
Frederick Smith, Jr. v. State of Delaware, 624 F. App'x 788 (3rd Cir. 2015). “at 6-7 (out-of-court statement should not have been admitted pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 3507, but error did not deprive defendant of fair trial because State had strong case even without that statement).”
Coxe v. State, 281 A.2d 606 (Del. 1971). “§ 4176(a) was preceded by 11 Del.C. § 3507. The pertinent provisions of § 3507 were very much like the Arizona and New Jersey statutes.”
Show all 99 citing cases →
— 11 Del. C. § 3507(a) — 12 cases
Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316 (Del. 2015). “57 The voluntariness requirement 54 There is some confusion in the briefs and in the record regarding which party actually introduced the tapes, but Trial Counsel made the decision to play the tapes for the jury.”
Morse v. State, 120 A.3d 1 (Del. 2015). “” 7 See 11 Del. C. § 3507. 2 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 12, 2012, Melvin, his wife, Pauline Morse (“Pauline”), then eleven- year old A.”
State v. Romeo (Del. Super. Ct. 2019).
Opinion (Del. 2019).
State v. Ward (Del. Super. Ct. 2019).
— 11 Del. C. § 3507(b) — 1 case
McCrary v. State (Del. 2023).
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.