Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Shakir Swain's convictions for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person prohibited. The court held that escorting Swain's sole defense witness from the courtroom in the jury's presence after the witness testified was not inherently prejudicial. The court also concluded that Swain waived any objection by declining a proposed curative instruction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court violated Swain's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial before an impartial jury by allowing the bailiff to escort his sole witness out of the courtroom in front of the jury after the witness testified.
Holdings
- The witness's escort from the courtroom after testifying was not inherently prejudicial and did not establish a constitutional violation.
- Swain waived the objection by failing to request a different procedure or specific relief before the escort occurred and by declining the offered curative instruction.
Key quotations
“At best, SWain might have been entitled to a cautionary jury instruction, but Swain declined the trial judge’s offer to provide such an instruction.” (¶ 6)
Factual background
Dover police executed a search warrant at Swain's residence and apprehended him while he attempted to escape through a second-floor bedroom window. A visual inventory of the bedroom revealed a loaded .40-caliber handgun, and forensic evidence linked Swain to one of his cell phones. Swain's sole witness, Kavon Warner, testified that Warner had brought the firearm into Swain's residence and placed it near Swain's bed. After Warner testified, a bailiff escorted him through a side door in front of the jury because Warner had an outstanding capias.
Procedural history
A Superior Court jury found Swain guilty of both offenses, and the Superior Court sentenced him to fifteen years of unsuspended Level V imprisonment followed by descending levels of supervision. Swain appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, which reviewed his constitutional-error claim de novo and affirmed the judgment.