|
|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
|
| |
State Courts -
Delaware - January 16, 2009
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Monroe v. State, No. 271, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 16, 2009, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because defendant did not raise his claims about, inter alia, the denial of trial counsel and his habitual offender sentencing on direct appeal, his claims were procedurally barred by Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(3); in addition, defendant failed to show that appellate counsel was ineffective or that he was prejudiced thereby.
|
|
| |
Ness v. Graybeal, C.A. No. 05C-02-130 JAP,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 16, 2009, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: In medical malpractice case, pretrial order was modified to allow patient's grandson to testify, as testimony related to key dispute in case, whether patient complained of neck pain, and there would be no surprise to doctor and thus, no prejudice, as audio tape of 911 call where grandson told dispatcher of neck pain was produced during discovery.
|
|
| |
Pierce v. State, No. 111, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 16, 2009, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge prejudicial language used at trial, as impact of infrequent use of challenged terms was de minimus and not indicative of belief a crime had been committed, or for failing to move for acquittal, as there was sufficient evidence convict inmate of rape, and thus, any motion would not have succeeded.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Stow v. State, No. 320, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 16, 2009, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because defendant freely and voluntarily confessed, had ample time to consult with counsel, was not threatened or forced to plead guilty, and was aware of the consequences of his guilty plea, his conclusory allegations failed to support his Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 32(d) motion to withdraw his plea.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback