McCoy v. State, 112 A.3d 239

McCoy was convicted on six counts, including two counts of First Degree Murder and related firearm and robbery charges, with capital sentencing at a separate penalty phase.
The jury found two aggravating factors and recommended death by a 10-2 vote on Counts 1 and 2; the judge later imposed death on those counts and other lesser terms on remaining counts.
Trial included McCoy proceeding pro se with standby counsel; the State and defense presented largely circumstantial and eyewitness testimony with little physical evidence.
Key State witnesses were White and Williams (accomplice-like testimony), with surveillance video offering partial corroboration but no gun or direct physical link to McCoy.
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding reversible error for improper denial of a peremptory challenge (reverse Batson) and for prosecutorial vouching and unprofessional conduct, among other issues, and vacated thedeath sentences for new trial.
The court ultimately held Alleyne does not render 11 Del. C. § 4209 unconstitutional, but vacated the death sentences and remanded for new proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there reversible Batson error and proper remedy?	McCoy asserts improper seating due to bias from the juror; seeks new trial.	Prosecution created reverse Batson by challenging McCoy's strikes; denial harmed fair trial.	New trial required due to reverse Batson error.
Was prosecutorial vouching and unprofessional conduct prejudicial?	Vouching and persistent unprofessional conduct impermissibly influenced jurors.	Prosecutor engaged in improper statements and tone; biased trial.	Convictions reversed on vouching; new trial ordered.
Was the evidence sufficient to sustain convictions?	Circumstantial and accomplice testimony supported guilt beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence relied on accomplice testimony without independent corroboration.	Evidence found not fatally defective; defective issues remanded for new trial (substantive sufficiency not decisive in this remand context).
Was an accomplice testimony instruction required for Bishop?	Brooks instruction required when accomplice testifies.	Bishop not an accomplice; no instruction needed.	No manifest injustice; instruction not required beyond multiple prior warnings.
Does Alleyne render Delaware’s death-penalty statute unconstitutional?	Alleyne imposes jury finding requirements on aggravating factors.	Alleyne undermines § 4209's structure.	Alleyne does not render § 4209 unconstitutional; statute upheld.

Batson v. Kentucky, 468 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1986) (prohibits racial discrimination in peremptory challenges)
Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1992) (extends Batson to defendant's peremptory challenges)
Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 108 (U.S. 2009) (no federal right to peremptory challenges; state remedies vary)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (Sixth Amendment requires jury weighing of aggravating factors)
Brice v. State, 815 A.2d 314 (Del. 2003) (Delaware death-penalty framework constitutional post-Ring)
Claudio v. State, 585 A.2d 1278 (Del. 1991) (history of Delaware right to trial by jury; common-law basis for peremptory challenges)
Brooks v. State, 40 A.3d 350 (Del. 2014) (requires Bland-style instruction for accomplice testimony; plain-error review)
Washington v. State, 4 A.3d 375 (Del. 2010) (three-part test for sufficiency when accomplice/conflicting testimony exists)
Mootz v. State, 808 N.W.2d 207 (Iowa 2012) (city/state authority on reverse Batson analysis; analogous considerations)
Kirkley v. State, 41 A.3d 372 (Del. 2012) (prosecutor vouching and its impact on fairness)