301 A.3d 1175
Del.2023Background
- On May 10, 2020, William Baker and others were assaulted and robbed at a Dover motel; Baker identified Deshaun Harris as one of the assailants and Harris was arrested days later.
- After arrest, Baker was approached, threatened, and offered $500 to sign documents recanting his identification; three different affidavits (cursive, printed, typed) were produced, and Baker testified he signed one under threat.
- The State recovered prison phone-call recordings (May 27–June 30, 2020) between a man using Harris’s SBI number and a woman discussing getting a man to sign a statement, affidavit formats, and $500—corroborating Baker’s account.
- Harris objected at trial under D.R.E. 403, arguing poor audio quality, lack of proper authentication of the male voice, and undue prejudice from revealing incarceration; the court edited the calls (removed GTL reference), ordered an agreed transcript, and gave limiting instructions.
- Harris stipulated he was incarcerated during the relevant period; the jury convicted him on multiple counts including aggravated act of intimidation and breach of conditions of bond; Harris appealed challenging admission of the prison calls.
- The Delaware Supreme Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the redacted recordings and agreed transcript, affirming the convictions and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under D.R.E. 403 (prison calls) | Calls were highly probative of witness tampering and corroborated Baker’s testimony | Calls were unduly prejudicial; revealed incarceration and could inflame jury | Admissible: probative value of corroborating witness-tampering charges outweighed prejudice; limiting measures used |
| Authentication & clarity of recordings/transcript | Testimony from DOC custodian, SBI usage, content (SBI number, $500, affidavit formats) supported authenticity; agreed transcript addressed clarity | Recording largely inaudible and male voice not proven to be Harris; transcript improperly allowed to fill gaps | Authentication sufficient for jury; agreed transcript and redaction were reasonable remedies; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hines v. State, 248 A.3d 92 (Del. 2021) (reviews standard for admissibility decisions)
- McCrary v. State, 290 A.3d 442 (Del. 2023) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Gallaway v. State, 65 A.3d 564 (Del. 2013) (trial court has discretion on relevance and unfair prejudice)
- Whitehurst v. State, 83 A.3d 362 (Del. 2013) (affirmed admission of prison recordings corroborating witness tampering)
- Parker v. State, 85 A.3d 682 (Del. 2014) (authentication via distinctive characteristics and context)
- Morris v. State, 210 A.3d 724 (Del. 2019) (DOC testimony and phone-system practices can authenticate prison calls)
- Bartell v. State, 183 A.3d 1280 (Del. 2018) (trial court can cure prejudice from evidence of pretrial detention through instruction)