Cooke v. State, 97 A.3d 513

Background

James E. Cooke was convicted of murder, rape, arson, burglary and related offenses in a capital case stemming from the 2005 Bonistall murder and related break-ins.
Cooke’s trial history includes a prior conviction overturned on appeal, a second trial, and a third set of counsel; Cooke ultimately represented himself before forfeiting that right.
Evidence linked Cooke to the Bonistall murder and earlier break-ins via handwriting, DNA, car/ATM surveillance, and eyewitness identifications, leading to a death sentence after a penalty phase.
Cooke’s pro se defense was marked by disruptive conduct; the court repeatedly restrained him, appointed standby counsel, and ultimately continued the trial with standby counsel in control.
A sequence of trial and voir dire rulings addressed self-representation, continuances, mitigation presentation, evidentiary exclusions, and juror challenges, all ultimately sustaining the death sentence on proportionality review.
The court held that Cooke’s right to self-representation could be forfeited for serious misconduct, and that standby counsel could present mitigation evidence where appropriate, with harmless error standards applying to admitted evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to counsel and self-representation denied	Cooke argues his right to counsel and pro se representation were violated by pretrial and trial conduct.	State defendants contend the court properly managed self-representation and access to counsel, given Cooke’s conduct.	No constitutional violation; court properly safeguarded rights amid misconduct.
Continuance denial after Cooke chose to represent himself	Cooke contends the court should have granted a longer continuance to prepare his defense.	Court acted within discretion, given Cooke’s prior exposure to the evidence and readiness to proceed.	No abuse of discretion; denial was amply justified.
Mitigation evidence presented over objection	Cooke claims standby counsel violated his right by presenting mitigation evidence against his wishes.	Mitigation evidence was properly presented to protect Cooke’s due process and ensure fair penalty review.	Any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; mitigation presentation upheld.
Rape Shield evidentiary ruling for Bonistall's prior sexual history	Cooke argues the court erred by excluding Bonistall’s prior sexual history to prove consent.	State contends the Rape Shield Statute applies to deceased victims and excludes such evidence for relevance and policy reasons.	Exclusion proper under 11 Del. C. § 3509; evidence not admissible to prove consent and remains relevant to credibility.
Juror voir dire and impartiality	Cooke claims juror misrepresentation and bias compromised the panel and warranted a new trial.	Court properly assessed juror honesty, limited challenges, and replaced or retained jurors based on demonstrated impartiality.	No new trial required; voir dire findings and juror handling within discretion; no reversible error.

Key Cases Cited

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation; limits when adversely affecting trial)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (1964) (calendar control; continuance discretion)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (standby counsel to aid pro se defendant)
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (juror voir dire; material question standard)
Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations; penological interests)
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) (mitigating evidence in death penalty cases)
Banther v. State, 783 A.2d 1287 (Del. 2001) (juror impartiality and voir dire deference)
Bailey v. State, 521 A.2d 1069 (Del. 1987) (continuance and calendar control)
Williams v. State, 56 A.3d 1053 (Del. 2012) (Delaware standards on juror bias and voir dire)
Jackson v. State, 374 A.2d 1 (Del. 1977) (impartial jury; voir dire standard)
McDonough Power Equipment Co. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (juror voir dire; material question standard)