Allen v. State
54, 2020
| Del. | Jul 16, 2021Background
- On July 15, 2015 Troy Williams reported two men forced entry, duct-taped and assaulted him, and robbed his home; Williams retrieved a revolver and fired as the men fled.
- Williams had a 2007 felony drug conviction that made him a person prohibited from possessing firearms; he initially denied to police that he had a revolver but later admitted he fired it.
- Police found duct tape, a torn pizza box, a bullet in the floor, fingerprints (one matched Allen on the pizza box; Clark matched other tape items), and phone records linking Allen and Clark to each other and to the scene.
- Clark (tried first and acquitted) testified for the defense that the encounter was a drug transaction gone wrong; Allen was later tried and convicted of multiple offenses including home invasion, robbery, assault, burglary, conspiracy, and several counts of possession of a firearm during a felony.
- On appeal (plain-error review because no contemporaneous objections were made), Allen raised three claims: (1) the jury instruction limiting prior-conviction impeachment to general credibility improperly foreclosed consideration of the conviction as proof of bias/motive to lie; (2) the court erred by not giving a cautionary instruction like the accomplice-witness caution; and (3) the State may have violated Brady by failing to disclose consideration given to Williams for his testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether instruction that a witness’s prior felony conviction may be used "solely" for general credibility unlawfully prevented jury from considering it as proof of specific bias/motive to lie | Allen: the phrase prevented the jury from using Williams’s prior conviction to infer bias/motive because Williams faced potential prosecution for the revolver possession | State: the pattern D.R.E. 609 instruction is correct; the separate credibility instruction allowed the jury to consider motive/bias; defense thoroughly cross-examined Williams | Court: No plain error — pattern 609 instruction plus credibility instruction together permitted jury to consider bias/motive; defense had full opportunity to impeach evidence |
| Whether trial court should have sua sponte given a cautionary instruction (like for accomplice testimony) because Williams had a penal interest | Allen: Williams’s potential criminal exposure created an interest requiring a cautionary instruction to view his testimony with care | State: Delaware law confines mandatory cautionary instruction to accomplice testimony; no extension warranted | Court: No plain error — cautionary instruction rule not extended beyond accomplices here |
| Whether the case should be remanded for a Brady hearing about undisclosed consideration to Williams for his testimony | Allen: Williams admitted illegal firearm possession but was not prosecuted; the omission suggests an undisclosed deal that the State should have disclosed | State: Speculation unsupported by the record; no evidence of a deal or consideration | Court: No plain error — record contains no evidence of Brady material or undisclosed consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (Confrontation Clause requires ability to cross-examine witness to expose possible bias from juvenile probation status)
- Weber v. State, 457 A.2d 674 (Del. 1983) (refusal to admit evidence of payments to witnesses denied effective impeachment and violated confrontation rights)
- Small v. State, 51 A.3d 452 (Del. 2012) (plain-error standard described)
- Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096 (Del. 1986) (plain-error doctrine elements explained)