Erskine v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Justin Erskine's convictions for murder-related offenses. The court held that an accomplice level-of-liability instruction under 11 Del. C. § 274 was not required because the record provided no rational basis for finding a lesser mental state. The court also held that the prosecutor's characterization of the defense expert's opinion as "bought and paid for" was improper but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Holdings

1. An accomplice level-of-liability instruction, like a lesser-included-offense instruction, is required only when there is a rational basis in the record to support a lesser level of liability. Because the evidence showed only intentional conduct by Erskine, the trial court did not err by omitting the instruction.
2. The prosecutor's characterization of the defense expert's opinion as "bought and paid for" was improper, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not deprive Erskine of a fair trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to give an accomplice level-of-liability instruction under 11 Del. C. § 274 when the instruction was not requested.
2. Whether the State's use of the phrase "bought and paid for" in referring to the defense expert constituted prosecutorial misconduct that deprived Erskine of a fair trial.

Disposition

affirmed