Hoskins v. State
102 A.3d 724
| Del. | 2014Background
- Hoskins was convicted of second-degree murder (Dec. 2009) for the shooting death of Brandon Beard; he later appealed and lost (Hoskins I).
- In 2012 Hoskins filed a Rule 61 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel on several grounds (new counsel).
- A Superior Court Commissioner ordered trial counsel to file an affidavit; counsel admitted oversights regarding an accomplice credibility instruction and out-of-court statements but denied ineffective assistance.
- The Commissioner recommended denial of relief; the Superior Court judge conducted a de novo review, adopted the recommendation, and denied the Rule 61 motion.
- Hoskins appealed, raising: (1) improper reliance on counsel’s affidavit; (2) failure to request a Bland-type accomplice credibility instruction; (3) failure to request a single-theory unanimity instruction; (4) failure to object to admission of accomplice’s out-of-court statements under 11 Del. C. § 3507; and (5) cumulative error.
- The Court analyzed Strickland standards, procedural bars, and applicable Delaware precedent (including pre-Brooks law governing Bland instructions) and affirmed the denial of postconviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Hoskins' Argument | State/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliance on trial counsel’s affidavit | Commissioner improperly relied on counsel’s affidavit that contained legal arguments adverse to Hoskins; violation of ethics and counsel conflict | Issue not raised below to Commissioner; affidavit merely summarized evidence and Commissioner independently analyzed record | Waived for failure to raise below; no reversible error shown |
| Failure to request an accomplice credibility (Bland) instruction | Counsel was ineffective for not requesting Bland instruction; counsel admitted it was an oversight | State argued procedural bars and that pre-Brooks law applied; strategic choice possible | Counsel’s omission was deficient under Strickland first prong, but no prejudice shown given corroborating evidence; claim fails |
| Failure to request single-theory unanimity instruction | Counsel ineffective for not requesting specific unanimity instruction | There was no potential jury confusion; direct appeal already held no plain error | Law of the case: no error and no prejudice; claim fails |
| Failure to object to admission of accomplice’s out-of-court statements (§3507) | Counsel should have objected to prosecutor’s imprecise §3507 foundation questions | Trial counsel may have reasonably declined a technical objection; objection unlikely to help; prior direct appeal found no plain error | No Strickland prejudice shown; omission not reversible error |
| Cumulative error | Aggregation of alleged errors denied Hoskins a fair trial | Individual errors lacked prejudice, so cumulative effect insufficient | Cumulative-error claim fails; no plain error or manifest injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Brooks v. State, 40 A.3d 346 (Del. 2012) (trial courts must provide Bland‑type instruction when accomplice testifies; not retroactive)
- Neal v. State, 80 A.3d 935 (Del. 2013) (oversight in failing to request Bland instruction can be deficient performance)
- Bland v. State, 263 A.2d 286 (Del. 1970) (model accomplice credibility instruction)
- Probst v. State, 547 A.2d 114 (Del. 1988) (single‑theory unanimity instruction analysis)
- Hoskins v. State (Hoskins I), 14 A.3d 554 (Del. 2011) (direct‑appeal opinion addressing accomplice instruction, unanimity, and §3507 issues)