85 A.3d 689
Del.2014Background
- Police observed Copper discard a gun and multiple baggies while walking; officers followed and arrested him, recovering additional crack cocaine and ammunition.
- Copper was charged with multiple offenses including possession with intent to deliver cocaine and possession of a firearm during a felony; some charges were later dismissed or nol prossed.
- During jury selection Copper repeatedly told the court in front of the panel that he was "not content" with the jury; defense counsel stated she was content.
- As the jury exited, Copper privately told the judge he would "take the deal for three years" and would sign it now; that comment was overheard by at least one juror.
- The judge denied defense counsel’s motion for mistrial, gave a curative instruction to the jury to disregard the defendant’s comments, and on the next day individually voir dired jurors about whether they heard the comments and could be fair; two jurors (including the one who heard the plea comment) were excused and replaced with alternates.
- Jury convicted Copper on multiple counts; on appeal he argued he was deprived of an impartial jury and that only a mistrial could cure the prejudice from his outbursts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of mistrial after defendant’s in-court comments violated right to impartial jury | State: trial judge properly managed potential prejudice; curative measures sufficed | Copper: his comments (dissatisfaction with jury and plea remark) prejudiced jurors and required a mistrial | Denial of mistrial not an abuse of discretion; curative instruction and individual voir dire cured prejudice |
| Whether defendant’s plea-comment required special treatment because it implied guilt | State: comment was prejudicial but remediable given context and judge’s actions | Copper: plea comment was tantamount to admission and likely biased jury | Court: although prejudicial, it was isolated and defendant-controlled; voir dire and excusal of the juror who heard it removed bias |
| Whether frequency/persistence of outbursts matters more than content | State: apply Taylor balancing factors (frequency, nature, likelihood of prejudice, closeness, curative action) | Copper: urge focus on content (plea comment) rather than just frequency | Court applied Taylor factors and found content alone did not mandate mistrial where other factors favored cure |
| Adequacy of curative measures (instruction and juror voir dire) | State: prompt instruction and individual questioning presumed to cure error | Copper: voir dire omitted asking about juror communications and counsel didn’t supplement questions | Court: judge acted within discretion; measures eliminated potential prejudice; counsel had chance to supplement but did not |
Key Cases Cited
- Sykes v. State, 953 A.2d 261 (Del. 2008) (standard for reviewing mistrial denials and defendant’s right to impartial jury)
- Taylor v. State, 690 A.2d 933 (Del. 1997) (four-factor test for assessing prejudice from courtroom outbursts)
- Burns v. State, 968 A.2d 1012 (Del. 2009) (application of Taylor factors and discussion of prejudicial outbursts)
- Hughes v. State, 490 A.2d 1034 (Del. 1985) (recognition of constitutional right to impartial jury and presumption juries follow instructions)