Flowers v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed Damone Flowers's convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The court rejected challenges concerning the voluntariness and admission of a witness's prior statement, prosecutorial remarks, unsolicited references to Flowers's incarceration, and a witness's disclosure that defense counsel had previously represented him.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly admitted Sudler's videotaped statement because the record supported its factual finding that the statement was voluntary. Police inducements or promises do not make a statement per se involuntary unless they are so extravagant or impressionable that they overbear the person's will and rational thinking process.
2. The prosecutor's reference to a 'code of silence' in opening statement did not constitute plain error because the record, including the reluctant and evasive testimony of eyewitnesses, supported a reasonable inference that such a pattern existed and Flowers did not show that the remark affected the outcome or deprived him of a fundamentally fair trial.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a mistrial or new trial after a witness made an unsolicited reference to Flowers's recent release from jail because the reference was vague and fleeting, the prosecutor did not intend to elicit it, and the immediate curative instruction cured any unfair prejudice.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a mistrial after a prosecution witness disclosed that defense counsel had previously represented him because the disclosure did not affect the outcome, and meaningful and practical alternatives—including instructions and limited follow-up questioning—adequately addressed any potential prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly admitted Ronetta Sudler's videotaped out-of-court statement identifying Flowers as the shooter after finding that it was voluntarily given.
2. Whether the prosecutor's reference to a purported eyewitness 'code of silence' during opening statement constituted plain error.
3. Whether the prosecutor's elicitation, or alleged elicitation, of a witness's reference to Flowers's recent release from jail required a mistrial or new trial.
4. Whether an unsolicited disclosure that defense counsel had previously represented a prosecution witness required a mistrial because it prejudiced Flowers and his defense.

Disposition

affirmed