Cannon v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Allen Cannon's motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The court rejected his ineffective-assistance claims concerning the admission and use of out-of-court identification statements, hearsay, precautionary instructions, crime-scene investigation, and subpoenaing a witness. The court held that the claims lacked merit, were formerly adjudicated, or failed to establish prejudice.

Holdings

1. There was no basis for trial counsel to object to the admission of the witnesses' statements because both declarants testified on direct and cross-examination about the shooting and their original statements to police.
2. A witness's out-of-court statement admitted under section 3507 is admissible as substantive evidence of guilt; therefore, counsel was not ineffective for failing to request an instruction limiting the statements to credibility.
3. The admission of the witnesses' statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because Cannon's counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine both witnesses at trial.
4. Cannon's claim concerning counsel's failure to object to Richard Dendy's testimony about statements from people on the street was barred because the identical issue had been unsuccessfully raised on direct appeal.
5. Cannon was not entitled to precautionary instructions under Acosta because the unusual circumstances requiring such instructions in Acosta were absent: the shooting itself was undisputed, and both witnesses testified at length about their changed accounts.
6. Cannon failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to conduct a forensic examination because the disputed issue was the shooter's identity, not the circumstances of the shooting, and counsel's investigative decision was presumed to be sound trial strategy.
7. Even assuming counsel performed deficiently by failing to subpoena the evidence detection officer, Cannon failed to show prejudice because counsel elicited the needed testimony from the chief investigating officer.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the witnesses' out-of-court statements under Delaware Code title 11, section 3507.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a limiting instruction concerning the jury's use of the out-of-court statements.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Confrontation Clause objection to the statements.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Richard Dendy's testimony about what he had heard from people on the street as hearsay.
5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request precautionary instructions under Acosta v. State.
6. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct a forensic examination of the crime scene.
7. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to subpoena the evidence detection officer to testify about fingerprint testing of shell casings.
8. Whether Cannon was entitled to a remand for an evidentiary hearing concerning an alleged waiver of his right to a jury trial on one weapon charge.

Disposition

affirmed