Morse v. State
2015 Del. LEXIS 373
| Del. | 2015Background
- Victim A.M., then 9–11, alleged repeated physical abuse by stepfather Melvin Morse including ‘‘waterboarding’’ (holding her head under running water) and hand suffocation; sister M.M. corroborated. Photographs and videos of punishments existed.
- Melvin, a pediatrician, admitted dragging A.M. but denied abusive intent, claiming hair-rinsing and joking use of the term "waterboarding." Wife Pauline pled guilty to misdemeanors and testified for the State.
- Charges against Melvin included Reckless Endangering (1st & 2nd degree), Assault (3rd degree), and multiple counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child; jury convicted on several counts and defendant appealed.
- Pretrial, the State sought admission of uncharged prior abusive acts against A.M.; the trial court admitted them under D.R.E. 404(b) (finding relevance to motive, intent, plan, domination) and gave limiting instructions. Evidence of abuse of another child (S.M.) was excluded.
- During deliberations the jury requested to re-watch videotaped CAC §3507 interviews of A.M. and M.M.; the prosecutor had mentioned in closing that the jury could request rehearing. The court replayed the videos once in open court but declined to prepare and provide a transcript of Pauline’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of uncharged prior bad acts under D.R.E. 404(b) | State: prior acts show motive, intent, plan, domination; probative value > prejudice | Melvin: cumulative uncharged acts were unduly prejudicial under D.R.E. 403 and cumulative-error doctrine | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; Getz/Deshields factors satisfied; limiting instructions given |
| Jury rehearing of §3507 videotaped statements during deliberations | State: rehearing permissible if jury requests; videos relevant to conflicts between in-court and out-of-court testimony | Melvin: replaying bolstered prosecution, unduly emphasized statements and deprived him of ability to re-cross-examine; also objected to lack of transcript of Pauline’s testimony | Affirmed: court acted within discretion (jury requested rehearing; single replay in open court; instructions given); no Confrontation or due process violation; denial of transcript not plain error |
| Prosecutor suggesting jury request rehearing | Not argued below (raised on appeal) | Melvin: suggestion was improper and encouraged rehearing | Court: Melvin failed to timely object; rejection under plain-error review; admonishes prosecutors to avoid such practice |
| Cumulative error claim | Melvin: multiple admitted uncharged acts cumulatively prejudiced trial | State: each piece properly admitted; cumulative-error doctrine inapplicable | Affirmed: no individual error shown, so cumulative-error inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Getz v. State, 538 A.2d 726 (Del. 1988) (sets five-factor D.R.E. 404(b) analysis for other-acts evidence)
- Deshields v. State, 706 A.2d 502 (Del. 1998) (provides factors for balancing probative value vs. prejudice)
- Flonnory v. State, 893 A.2d 507 (Del. 2006) (trial court has broad discretion on rehearing testimony; §3507 recordings should not ordinarily be given to jury for deliberations)
- Lewis v. State, 21 A.3d 8 (Del. 2011) (replaying §3507 statements to jury allowed only in narrow circumstances; limit replaying)
- Allen v. State, 644 A.2d 982 (Del. 1994) (ten-year rule of thumb on remoteness of other-act evidence)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1991) (constitutional limits on admitting other-acts evidence and undue prejudice)