Luttrell v. State
97 A.3d 70
Del.2014Background
- Luttrell was convicted in the Superior Court of multiple offenses, including Attempted Rape First Degree, Unlawful Sexual Contact First Degree, Attempted Unlawful Sexual Contact First Degree, and Indecent Exposure; two Counts of Rape First Degree were acquitted.
- The indictment charged multiple counts of similar offenses; Luttrell moved for a bill of particulars to identify which acts and dates supported each count.
- The trial court denied the bill of particulars, relying on the probable cause affidavit for notice, but the affidavit did not map specific acts to specific counts or dates for the jury.
- TF’s CAC interview and trial testimony were inconsistent on dates and specific acts, and there were conflicts with Luttrell’s statements and with TF’s grandmother’s testimony.
- Detective Wright’s pre-arrest interview video and related testimony suggested Luttrell’s credibility issues; Luttrell’s counsel did not object at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a bill of particulars was an abuse of discretion | Luttrell argues the indictment failed to differentiate counts or specify acts/dates. | Luttrell contends the State did not provide enough particularized notice to prepare a defense. | Abuse of discretion; reversal and new trial required. |
| Whether admission of vouching evidence constituted plain error | Video/interview and testimony improperly bolstered credibility of the child and discouraged Luttrell’s defense. | Defense did not object at trial; plain error review applies. | Plain error; reversal and remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Getz v. State, 538 A.2d 726 (Del. 1988) (uncharged conduct evidence exclusion; foundational standard)
- Dobson v. State, 80 A.3d 959 (Del. Supr. Ct. 2013) (ineffective assistance where bill of particulars needed)
- Richardson v. State, 43 A.3d 906 (Del. 2012) (prosecutorial vouching; plain error standard)
- Capano v. State, 781 A.2d 556 (Del. 2001) (credibility and vouching considerations cited)
- Wheat v. State, 527 A.2d 269 (Del. 1987) (evidentiary admissibility and credibility concerns)
- Probst v. State, 547 A.2d 114 (Del. 1988) (unanimity instruction considerations)
- Getz v. State, 538 A.2d 726 (Del. 1988) (Getz cited again for standard on charges and proof)