Brooks v. State
40 A.3d 346
| Del. | 2012Background
- Delaware Supreme Court consolidated Rashan Owens and Ronald Brooks to decide accomplice testimony instructions.
- Court adopts a modified Bland instruction as mandatory whenever a self-identified accomplice testifies.
- Failure to give an accomplice instruction constitutes plain error under the new rule.
- Owens: accomplice Martin testified; no Bland instruction requested; trial used a model instruction; convictions on second robbery affirmed.
- Brooks: Epps testified; independent corroboration largely supported guilt; one conspiracy conviction reversed for lack of corroboration.
- Directive: effective March 15, 2012, trial judges must give the modified Bland instruction in accomplice cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must circuit give accomplice instruction | Owens argued plain error for no Bland instruction. | Brooks argued ineffective assistance for failure to request instruction. | Yes; failure to instruct is plain error when accomplice testimony occurs. |
| Content of the instruction | No Bland instruction previously given; need proper guidance. | Instruction accuracy suffices so long as it informs credibility concerns. | Trial judges must give a modified Bland instruction for accomplice testimony. |
| Effect on ineffective assistance claims | Failure to request instruction could support ineffective assistance. | No prejudice if independent corroboration exists. | Brooks: prejudice not shown except for Conspiracy Second Degree; Owens: no reversible error. |
| Impact on prior case law | Retain Smith/Hoskins logic with modern plain-error standard. | Continued reliance on older Bland language was acceptable. | Overruled; replaces old deviations with mandatory modified Bland instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bland v. State, 263 A.2d 286 (Del. 1970) (accomplice credibility instruction foundational standard)
- Cabrera v. State, 747 A.2d 543 (Del. 2000) (upheld accuracy-and-adequacy approach to instructions)
- Bordley v. State, 832 A.2d 1250 (Del. 2003) (pattern instruction acceptable if accurate and explains issues)
- Soliman v. State, 918 A.2d 339 (Del. 2007) (summary of law may substitute Bland if accurate)
- Smith v. State, 991 A.2d 1169 (Del. 2010) (failure to request accomplice instruction may prejudice defense; emphasis on best practice)
- Hoskins v. State, 14 A.3d 554 (Del. 2011) (plain error standard limited when instruction not requested; later Rule 61 context)