200, 2022
Del.Mar 23, 2023Background:
- In Feb. 2020 Corporal Snook arrested Cassandra Newton; she later alleged she miscarried and blamed him (he was cleared after investigation).
- In Jan. 2021 Newton encountered Snook at the DMV, became upset and loudly used abusive language, including threatening to “follow him home and kill him.”
- Newton was indicted for terroristic threatening of a public official, harassment, and disorderly conduct; tried in Superior Court.
- The State moved in limine to exclude testimony about the Feb. 2020 arrest, the alleged miscarriage, and Newton’s use of the phrase “baby killer”; the Superior Court granted the motion under Rules 702/403 but allowed testimony that the parties previously knew each other.
- A jury convicted Newton of harassment and disorderly conduct (acquitted on terroristic threatening); she was sentenced to incarceration suspended for probation and ordered to attend mental health counseling.
- On appeal Newton argued exclusion of her testimony deprived her of a defense; the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding the exclusion proper under Rule 403 and finding no plain error on the unpreserved constitutional claim.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court erred by excluding Newton’s testimony about the prior arrest, miscarriage, and related statements | Newton: testimony was critical to show a "visceral triggered reaction," negating intent for harassment/disorderly conduct and explaining her state of mind | State: evidence irrelevant to intent, highly prejudicial, would require medical/expert proof and a trial-within-a-trial, risk juror confusion | Court: Affirmed exclusion under Rule 403 — testimony was chiefly about motive (not intent), had minimal probative value and substantial prejudicial risk; no plain error on constitutional claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Goode v. State, 136 A.3d 303 (Del. 2016) (plain-error review for claims not raised below)
- Williams v. State, 796 A.2d 1281 (Del. 2002) (standards for plain-error review)
- United States v. Sheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (evidence excluded under rules of evidence is not per se constitutional error)
- Manna v. State, 945 A.2d 1149 (Del. 2008) (appellate review of trial court evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Adams, 541 A.2d 567 (Del. 1988) (framework for determining when a trial court exceeds its discretion)