Kirkley v. State
41 A.3d 372
Del.2012Background
- Buckey Kirkley robbed a Super Fresh register, reaching for money after asking to exchange pennies for a dime.
- Stepro shut the cash drawer, injuring Kirkley and thwarting his attempts; Kirkley fled.
- Police tracked Kirkley via scent to a residence on Bellanca Lane; a BB gun and hoodie were found there.
- Kirkley was indicted for Attempted Robbery in the First Degree; trial occurred February 2011.
- During rebuttal, the prosecutor argued the State brought the charge because Kirkley did what the indictment alleged, prompting defense objection.
- Trial court declined to find vouching but deemed any error curable by the pattern jury instruction; Kirkley was convicted and later sentenced as a habitual offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the closing rebuttal constitute prosecutorial vouching? | Kirkley claims the State’s remarks implied personal knowledge of guilt. | State contends remarks were permissible inference from evidence or within closing argument. | Yes; statements vouched for the State's case. |
| Did the misconduct prejudicially affect Kirkley under Hughes factors? | Misconduct compromised the presumption of innocence and central issue of guilt. | Any error was curable by the pattern instruction and the evidence supports guilt. | Yes; misconduct prejudicially affected Kirkley, warranting reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardy v. State, 962 A.2d 244 (Del. 2008) (prosecutor cannot vouch for State's case)
- Hughes v. State, 437 A.2d 559 (Del. 1981) (misconduct risks presumption of guilt and requires careful assessment)
- Baker v. State, 906 A.2d 139 (Del. 2006) (Hughes factors applied contextually; non-conjunctive test)
- DeAngelis v. Harrison, 628 A.2d 77 (Del. 1993) (pattern instruction must cure specific prejudice)
- Boatson v. State, 457 A.2d 738 (Del. 1983) (immediate curative instruction can mitigate prejudice)
- Edwards v. State, 320 A.2d 701 (Del. 1974) (swift trial judge response to misconduct critical)
- Hunter v. State, 815 A.2d 730 (Del. 2002) (Hunter governs when Hughes does not mandate reversal)
- Hughes v. State, 437 A.2d 559 (Del. 1981) (holding that vouching is prejudicial and violates due process)