Hoskins v. State
14 A.3d 554
| Del. | 2011Background
- Hoskins was convicted of murder second degree, four counts of PFDCF, and multiple reckless endangerings after two trials.
- The State’s case centered on West’s accomplice testimony and evidence that one gun (West’s Ruger 9mm) fired the fatal shot.”
- Defense did not request an accomplice credibility instruction or a single theory unanimity instruction at trial.
- The trial court gave a general accomplice liability instruction at the State’s request.
- West’s out-of-court statements were admitted under Delaware Code title 11, § 3507 at the second trial.
- On appeal, Hoskins argues plain error for (i) accomplice credibility instruction, (ii) lack of single theory unanimity instruction, and (iii) admission of 3507 statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accomplice credibility instruction requested | State contends no plain error; instruction not required sua sponte. | Hoskins asserts trial judge erred by not sua sponte giving Bland-type instruction. | No plain error; instruction not required absent request. |
| Single theory unanimity instruction | Probst framework governs; general unanimity usually sufficient. | Hoskins argues court should have given a single theory unanimity instruction. | No plain error; second Probst circumstance not present; general instruction adequate. |
| Admission of 3507 statements | Foundational requirements satisfied; statements properly admitted. | Hoskins contends lack of truthfulness foundation undermines admissibility. | No plain error; foundation substantially met; questions could have been phrased better but not prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bland v. State, 263 A.2d 286 (Del. 1970) (accomplice credibility instruction may be required when corroboration lacking)
- Smith v. State, 991 A.2d 1169 (Del. 2010) (postconviction standard for prejudice from failure to request instruction; prejudice depends on facts)
- Probst v. State, 547 A.2d 114 (Del. 1988) (three-factor test for single theory unanimity instruction)
- Liu v. State, 628 A.2d 1376 (Del. 1993) (general unanimity instruction often suffices for joint liability cases)
- Stevenson v. State, 709 A.2d 619 (Del. 1998) (no single theory unanimity where facts involve single incident with single shooter)
- Ayers v. State, 844 A.2d 304 (Del. 2004) (two-person involvement but single incident; unanimity instruction not required to identify shooter)
- Woodlin v. State, 3 A.3d 1084 (Del. 2010) (foundational requirements for 3507 statements)
- Turner v. State, 5 A.3d 612 (Del. 2010) (plain error standard applied to postconviction questions)