McMullen v. State, 75, 2020

McMullen and an associate (Williams) previously robbed a drug dealer; a rumor circulated that Gibbs would identify them. McMullen said Gibbs “has gotta go.”
Video placed McMullen and Gibbs together shortly before the killing; McMullen returned to the building without Gibbs. Gibbs was found dead from a gunshot to the back of the head.
Witnesses reported McMullen admitted to killing Gibbs; police recovered a handgun from a pond whose shell casing matched one found near the body, though the fatal bullet could not be forensically matched.
At a bench trial the State introduced prior out-of-court statements from Mills and Keshawn under 11 Del. C. § 3507 after their trial testimony diverged from pre-trial statements; McMullen objected as cumulative.
McMullen was convicted of First‑Degree Murder and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (PFDCF); he appealed, arguing (1) improper admission of cumulative § 3507 statements and (2) insufficient evidence identifying him as the shooter, relying impermissibly on an accomplice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (McMullen)	Held
Admissibility of §3507 prior statements (Mills, Keshawn) — cumulative?	Statements materially differed from trial testimony, satisfied §3507, and were not needlessly cumulative under D.R.E. 403; any error harmless.	Witnesses remembered events; prior statements only buttressed in‑court testimony and were therefore cumulative and should have been excluded.	Affirmed. Trial court did not abuse discretion; it found material differences between prior statements and in‑court testimony and properly applied D.R.E. 403. Form objection to unrecorded narrative was waived.
Sufficiency of the evidence to identify McMullen as shooter; reliance on accomplice testimony	Evidence (motive, video placing McMullen with victim, multiple postcrime admissions, recovered handgun with matching casing) sufficed; Williams was not an accomplice to the shooting and his testimony was corroborated.	Case was circumstantial, rested on unreliable §3507 hearsay and accomplice testimony (Williams); insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	Affirmed. Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the record supports convictions for First‑Degree Murder and PFDCF; Williams was not an accomplice and testimony was corroborated.

Richardson v. State, 43 A.3d 906 (Del. 2012) (§3507 statements may be admitted but do not override other evidentiary rules; cumulative statements can be excluded under Rule 403)
Flonnory v. State, 893 A.2d 507 (Del. 2006) (standard of review for §3507 admissibility and use of unwritten prior statements)
Keys v. State, 337 A.2d 18 (Del. 1975) (background on prior‑statement common‑law rule and statutory departure)
Bland v. State, 263 A.2d 286 (Del. 1970) (caution about convicting solely on accomplice testimony; need for corroboration instruction)
Brooks v. State, 40 A.3d 346 (Del. 2012) (trial judges must give a modified accomplice‑testimony instruction when accomplice evidence is offered)
Harper v. State, 121 A.3d 24 (Del. 2015) (Delaware law does not recognize accessory‑after‑the‑fact liability as creating accomplice liability for an already completed offense)
Moyer v. State, 387 A.2d 194 (Del. 1978) (elements of first‑degree murder: intent and causation)
Monroe v. State, 652 A.2d 560 (Del. 1995) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)