Dillard v. State
256, 2024
| Del. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Bakr Dillard was indicted for attempted murder and related crimes following a shooting involving multiple suspects who fled from police.
- During Dillard’s trial, the State realized it failed to provide defense with all police reports, violating the discovery agreement.
- Critical DNA evidence linked Dillard to crime scene items, but defense counsel had relied on an incorrect representation from the State about which DNA evidence implicated Dillard.
- Upon discovery of the violation, the trial court excluded the relevant DNA evidence and issued a curative instruction to the jury to disregard it, instead of granting a mistrial or dismissing the charges.
- Dillard was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 85 years; on appeal, he argued that the remedy did not sufficiently cure the prejudice caused by the discovery violation.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Superior Court’s chosen remedy for the discovery violation was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Dillard’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery sanction adequacy | Only dismissing charges or mistrial would cure prejudice | Excluding DNA and curative instruction were sufficient | Exclusion and curative instruction adequate; no prejudice |
| Waiver of appellate review | Did not waive objection to discovery violation | Defense counsel agreed to remedy, waiving issue | Issue was waived; cannot be raised on appeal |
| Prejudicial effect of violation | Discovery violation undermined his defense | Sufficient independent evidence of guilt existed | No substantial rights prejudiced; conviction stands |
| Jury curative instruction | Jurors could not disregard prior DNA evidence | Jurors are presumed to follow court instructions | Jury presumed to follow instruction; no reason to depart |
Key Cases Cited
- Cabrera v. State, 840 A.2d 1256 (Del. 2004) (standard for reviewing sanctions for discovery violations is abuse of discretion)
- Burrell v. State, 332 A.3d 412 (Del. 2024) (courts presume against waiver of rights in criminal context)
- Oliver v. State, 60 A.3d 1093 (Del. 2013) (appellate reversal for discovery violation only if substantial rights are prejudiced)
- State v. Robinson, 209 A.3d 25 (Del. 2019) (dismissal is drastic relief for discovery violations and only warranted with demonstrable prejudice)
- Revel v. State, 956 A.2d 23 (Del. 2008) (jurors are presumed to follow curative instructions)