Fritzinger v. State, 10 A.3d 603

Fritzinger was convicted by a jury of multiple sex offenses involving his ex-girlfriend’s two minor daughters.
The charges stem from alleged abuse occurring from Leon’s home through foster placements and later.
Fritzinger sought to introduce Mary’s prior sexual conduct under 11 Del. C. § 3508(a) to attack her credibility.
The trial judge did an in-camera review but denied a mandatory Section 3508 hearing outside the jury.
The court referred to Mary and Tina as “victims” during closing instructions, which Fritzinger challenged.
The trial judge denied motions for mistrial and recusal, and Fritzinger sought reassignment on remand due to apparent bias.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the § 3508 hearing mandatory and properly conducted?	Fritzinger contends the hearing was required and denied.	State contends screening occurred and partial questioning allowed.	Remand for new trial due to denial of mandatory 3508 hearing.
Did the judge's reference to the complainants as 'victims' prejudice Fritzinger?	Name-calling signals guilt and violates neutrality.	No reversible error; cautionary instructions were sufficient.	Reversible error; judge’s reference requires remand.
Was there an appearance of bias requiring recusal/remand?	State’s lead investigator overlapped with past cases; potential bias.	Judge ruled subjectively no bias.	Remand for reassignment to new trial judge due to appearance of bias.
Should the case be reassigned on remand to ensure fairness?	Public confidence requires fresh adjudication.	An additional remand is unnecessary if bias is absent.	Remand to a different judge on remand to preserve fairness.

Jackson v. State, 600 A.2d 21 (Del. 1991) (prohibition on labeling complainants as victims when the crime is disputed)
Mason v. State, Not in official reporter (Del. 1997) (proceedings where consent is the sole defense; caution advised)
Los v. Los, 595 A.2d 381 (Del. 1991) (two-prong recusal test: subjective then objective on appearance of bias)
Gattis v. State, 955 A.2d 1276 (Del. 2008) (objective analysis of bias and appearance matters)
Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1988) (appearance of bias; rectifying oversight to maintain public confidence)
State v. Carey, 178 A.877 (Del. 1935) (judicial comments on issues of fact; avoiding improper weight by court)
Buckley v. R.H. Johnson & Co., 25 A.2d 392 (Del. Super. 1942) (judges should avoid language favoring one party)