Summary
The Supreme Court of Delaware held that a prosecutor committed misconduct by asserting that the State brought attempted robbery charges because that was exactly what the defendant did, thereby improperly vouching for the State's case. Applying the Hughes prejudice factors, the court concluded that the misconduct prejudicially affected the defendant in a close case and that the pattern jury instruction did not cure the error. The court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by stating in closing rebuttal that the State brought the Attempted Robbery charge because that was exactly what Kirkley did.
- Whether the prosecutorial misconduct prejudicially affected Kirkley's substantial rights under the Hughes harmless-error framework.
- Whether the pattern jury instruction concerning attorney opinions cured the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor's improper vouching.
Holdings
- A prosecutor commits misconduct by implying that the State brought a specific charge because the defendant was guilty of that charge; such a statement vouches for the State's case by implying personal knowledge of guilt beyond the evidence.
- The misconduct prejudicially affected Kirkley's substantial rights because the case was close, the misconduct concerned the central issue of whether he committed Attempted Robbery rather than theft, and the pattern jury instruction did not meaningfully cure the error.
Key quotations
“Asserting that the State brought the charges because Kirkley committed the crime implies personal knowledge outside the evidence and emasculates the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence.” (at 378)
“The Kirkley pattern jury instruction failed to specifically address the source of the prejudice and even if it had, it was not sufficiently immediate to expunge the prejudicial impact of the prosecutor's statements.” (at 381)
Factual background
Kirkley entered a supermarket, attempted to obtain money from an open cash register, and reached toward his waistband, possibly for a BB gun, before fleeing. Police tracked him to a nearby residence, where they found clothing and a BB gun, and the cashier identified Kirkley in part by his goatee. At trial, the central dispute was whether his conduct constituted Attempted Robbery in the First Degree or the lesser included offense of theft.
Procedural history
A New Castle County grand jury indicted Kirkley on one count of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree. After a two-day jury trial, the jury convicted him; the Superior Court subsequently sentenced him as a habitual offender to 25 years at Level V. The Supreme Court of Delaware held that prosecutorial misconduct prejudicially affected Kirkley's substantial rights and reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.