Sullins v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Jerome Sullins's convictions and sentences for drug-related offenses. The court held that retrial after a defense-requested mistrial did not violate double jeopardy because the prosecution did not intend to provoke the mistrial. It also held that testimony concerning Sullins's probation status was admissible under Delaware Rule of Evidence 403 and was not improperly admitted under Rule 404(b).

Holdings

1. When a defendant's motion for mistrial is granted, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial unless the defendant proves that prosecutorial or judicial misconduct was intended to provoke the mistrial. Sullins failed to meet that burden because the record did not show an intent to provoke the mistrial.
2. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the probation officer's testimony because the evidence was probative of whether Sullins's alleged co-residents actually lived at the residence where the drugs were found, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
3. Sullins's alternative D.R.E. 404(b) challenge failed because the probation officer's testimony was admissible under D.R.E. 403 for the same reasons, and Sullins did not identify which additional Getz requirements were unsatisfied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether retrial after a mistrial declared at Sullins's request violated the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Delaware Constitutions because the mistrial was allegedly provoked by prosecutorial or judicial misconduct.
2. Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion under D.R.E. 403 by admitting the probation officer's testimony that Sullins was under probation supervision and had failed to report the alleged co-residents.
3. Whether the probation officer's testimony was inadmissible under D.R.E. 404(b) and the Getz framework.

Disposition

affirmed