Summary
The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed Danny R. Adkins's convictions for second-degree rape, endangering the welfare of a child, and unlawful sexual conduct. The Court held that the prosecutor did not improperly vouch for the victim and that the trial court did not plainly err by declining to declare a mistrial after the victim discussed testimony with other witnesses.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the prosecutor improperly vouched for A.S.'s credibility through opening and closing argument and questions concerning the truthfulness of her prior out-of-court statements.
- Whether the Superior Court committed plain error by failing to declare a mistrial sua sponte after A.S. acknowledged discussing testimony with other witnesses during trial.
Holdings
- The prosecutor did not improperly vouch for A.S. The questions concerning the truthfulness of her prior statements properly established the foundation for admitting those statements under Delaware Code title 11, section 3507, and the opening and closing comments were tied to facts and reasonable inferences from the trial evidence rather than personal superior knowledge.
- The Superior Court did not commit plain error by declining to declare a mistrial after A.S. spoke with prosecution witnesses during trial. The circumstances did not create manifest necessity or prejudice to Adkins, and defense counsel's express decision not to request a mistrial waived any plain-error claim on direct appeal.
Key quotations
“Improper vouching occurs when the prosecutor implies some personal superior knowledge, beyond that logically inferred from the evidence at trial, that the witness has testified truthfully.”
“A trial judge should grant a mistrial only where there is a manifest necessity or the ends of public justice would be otherwise defeated. The remedy of a mistrial is mandated only when there are no meaningful and practical alternatives to that remedy.”
Factual background
While A.S., a minor, was visiting her uncle Adkins, he touched and penetrated her vagina with his finger and forced her to place her hand on his penis. A.S. later disclosed the conduct to family friends and her father, wrote a note describing it, and was interviewed at a Children's Advocacy Center. During trial, the prosecutor commented on A.S.'s decision to come forward and asked whether her prior out-of-court statements were truthful; A.S. also acknowledged speaking with prosecution witnesses after hearing their testimony despite the court's instruction not to do so.
Procedural history
Adkins was charged by Information in the Superior Court after his arrest. A jury convicted him of all but one rape count, and the Superior Court dismissed an additional rape count on multiplicity grounds before sentencing him. On direct appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the unpreserved claims for plain error and affirmed the judgments.