Delaware, August, 2008, State Case law

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 - August 21 - August 22, 2008

In re Defendant Id No. 0606001166, No. 0606001166, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, August 21, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Because defendant's motion for postconviction relief was filed more than a year after the case became final, and because there was no colorable claim of any miscarriage of justice, and because everything defendant alleged, he knew on the day of his plea, the motion was procedurally barred by Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(1).

Search Cases for Free

In re Riley, No. 210, 2008, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 21, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Defendants' petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition were dismissed because they failed to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Delaware. The supreme court had no jurisdiction under Del. Const. art. IV, ? 11(5) to issue a writ to the attorney general, and the appellate process would provide defendant an adequate remedy.

Search Cases for Free

State v. Hackett, ID No. 9607013263, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, August 21, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief because his participation as an accomplice to the robbery rendered him culpable for the murder of the victim and it was clear that the murder occurred in the course of the robbery and was committed in order to remove any resistance to its successful completion.

Search Cases for Free

Hexion Specialty Chems., Inc. v. Huntsman Corp., C.A. No. 3841-VCL, COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, August 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: A corporation's motion to compel discovery of documents prepared by a second corporation's financial advisor was granted because Del. Ch. Ct. R. 26(b)(4)(B) did not apply when the advisor acquired and continued to acquire information as an "actor" in or a "viewer" of the corporations' transaction, which was at the heart of the parties' lawsuit.

Search Cases for Free

Money v. State, No. 110, 2008, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Rape conviction was affirmed because, although prosecutor misstated law during closing argument, under Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8, as defense counsel failed to object or request a curative instruction, review was for plain error, and failure to give curative instruction was not error because final jury instruction correctly stated the applicable law.

Search Cases for Free

Waterman v. State, No. 562, 2007, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Trial court erred in allowing a child's videotaped interview to be available to jury during deliberations in defendant's rape trial because concerns about separate tapes of defendant's police interrogation did not justify departure from "default" rule that Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ? 3507 statements should not have been allowed into jury room.

Search Cases for Free

Young v. State, No. 602, 2007, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Incidents supporting attempted murder and assault charges occurred within 20 days of each other, and involved the same victim, the same weapon, similar injuries, the same witnesses, the same investigating officers, and arguably the same motive. Therefore, the joinder of the charges was appropriate under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 8(a).

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal