Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Wayne O. Revel, Jr.'s convictions for two counts of robbery and one count of attempted robbery in the second degree. The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying a mistrial after a prosecution witness briefly referenced Revel's invocation of his right to remain silent and right to counsel. Applying the four-factor analysis from Pena v. State, the court found the comment isolated, minimally prejudicial, and adequately addressed by a prompt curative instruction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after a State witness, in response to defense cross-examination, referred to Revel's invocation of his right to remain silent and request for counsel.
- Whether the four-factor analysis from Pena v. State, rather than the analysis applicable to comments elicited or caused by the prosecution in Hughes v. State and Hunter v. State, governed the mistrial motion.
Holdings
- When a witness's brief reference to a defendant's invocation of the right to remain silent results from defense questioning rather than prosecutorial conduct, the court applies the four-factor Pena analysis: the nature and frequency of the comment, the likelihood of prejudice, the closeness of the case, and the adequacy of the trial court's curative measures.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial because the reference was isolated and inadvertent, the likelihood of prejudice was minimal, the evidence was not so closely balanced as to require a mistrial, and the prompt curative instruction adequately addressed any potential prejudice.
Key quotations
“A trial judge should grant a mistrial only when there is `manifest necessity' or the `ends of public justice would be otherwise defeated.'” (27)
“The remedy of a mistrial is "mandated only when there are `no meaningful and practical alternatives' to that remedy."” (27)
“Under these circumstances, the record reflects no abuse of discretion in denying Revel's motion for a mistrial.” (30)
Factual background
Revel was prosecuted for two bank robberies and an attempted bank robbery. The State's evidence included surveillance photographs, clothing and cash recovered from Revel, and testimony identifying similarities between those items and the robber's clothing, but the tellers could not positively identify Revel at trial and no fingerprints linked him to the crimes. During cross-examination by defense counsel, Detective Papili explained the absence of a handwriting sample by stating that Revel had declined to make a statement and requested an attorney. The trial court denied a mistrial and promptly instructed the jury that Revel had an absolute right to remain silent and that no inference could be drawn from his failure to make a statement.
Procedural history
Revel was reindicted on charges arising from two bank robberies and an attempted bank robbery after the State consolidated the cases. The jury convicted him of two counts of robbery and one count of attempted robbery in the second degree; the disguise charges were nolle prossed. The Superior Court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal, denied his motion for a mistrial, and sentenced him as a habitual offender. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed.