Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed James E. Hardin's conviction for Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree. The court held that the challenged prosecutorial comments did not constitute reversible or plain error, that a victim's uncorroborated testimony could support the conviction, and that the trial court properly refused to give a Lord Hale cautionary instruction. The court overruled prior Delaware decisions to the extent they authorized or required that instruction in future cases.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether prosecutorial comments during closing argument, including a characterization of the defense argument as "laughable" and other unobjected-to remarks, constituted reversible plain error.
- Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by declining to declare a mistrial sua sponte after the prosecutor's "laughable" comment, where the trial court struck the comment and gave a curative instruction.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Hardin's conviction for Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree when the victim's testimony was not corroborated by physical evidence or other testimony.
- Whether the Superior Court was required to give the defense-requested Lord Hale cautionary instruction concerning the testimony of a complainant in a sexual-offense case.
Holdings
- The prosecutor's use of the word "laughable" was improper, but the trial court adequately addressed it by striking the remark and instructing the jury to disregard it; the failure to declare a mistrial sua sponte was not an abuse of discretion.
- The challenged closing-argument remarks that were not objected to at trial did not constitute plain error sufficient to overturn the conviction.
- A Lord Hale cautionary instruction is no longer appropriate and must not be given by Delaware courts under any circumstances.
- A victim's credible testimony concerning alleged sexual contact, standing alone, is sufficient to support a conviction if it establishes every element of the offense; corroborating physical evidence or testimony is not required.
Key quotations
“We further hold that such an instruction should not be given by Delaware judges in the future under any circumstances.” (840 A.2d at 1224)
“The testimony of a sole witness, however, will be sufficient to form the basis for a conviction if the testimony presented by that witness establishes every element of the offense and is found by the jury to be credible.” (840 A.2d at 1224)
Factual background
Fourteen-year-old Sarah Jackson was babysitting at Hardin's home. After Hardin returned home in the early morning hours, Jackson testified that she fell asleep on a couch and awoke to Hardin touching her breast and penetrating her vagina with his finger. She reported the incident to Hardin's household members and her mother the following morning, and then repeated her account to police. The State relied principally on Jackson's testimony, which the jury found credible.
Procedural history
Hardin was indicted for Rape in the Fourth Degree and Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree. The Superior Court jury found him guilty of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree but could not reach a verdict on the rape charge, resulting in a mistrial on that charge. The Superior Court sentenced Hardin to two years at Level V, suspended after seven days with the balance at Level III. Hardin appealed, challenging prosecutorial closing remarks, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the refusal to give a Lord Hale cautionary instruction.