Summary
This Delaware Supreme Court opinion reviews a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion to dismiss or declare a mistrial following the State's failure to disclose certain police reports during discovery. The appellate court found that defense counsel waived the issue by affirmatively agreeing to the trial court's remedy of excluding specific DNA evidence and issuing a curative jury instruction. Even assuming waiver did not occur, the court held that the discovery violation did not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights given the abundance of independent incriminating evidence. The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Dillard waived his discovery‑violation argument on appeal.
- Whether the remedy of excluding the DNA evidence and giving a curative instruction adequately cured prejudice, requiring reversal of the conviction.
Holdings
- Dillard waived the argument because counsel affirmatively agreed that the court's remedy cured the prejudice.
- The remedy was sufficient; the conviction is affirmed.
Key quotations
“NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.” (A623)
“Defense counsel affirmed that the court’s remedy cured the issue, indicating a voluntary relinquishment of the right to challenge the discovery violation.” (A564–66)
Factual background
A grand jury indicted Bakr Dillard for attempted murder. During trial the State failed to disclose police reports showing DNA was found on a second magazine, not the first. The trial court excluded the second‑magazine DNA evidence and gave a curative instruction. Dillard was convicted.
Procedural history
The Superior Court denied Dillard's motion to dismiss or declare a mistrial after finding a discovery violation, excluded DNA evidence from the Second Magazine, and gave a curative instruction. Dillard was convicted on all charges. He appealed, arguing waiver and prejudice.