36 A.3d 756
Del.2011Background
- Norcross was convicted of 1996 murder and sentenced to death in 2001.
- During postconviction, Norcross asserted four claims: ineffective assistance for not presenting mitigation, prosecutorial misconduct, objectionable jury instructions, and Ring-based constitutional challenge.
- On remand, the trial court reweighed mitigation with expanded postconviction evidence, finding aggravators overwhelming.
- Unpresented mitigation included four lay witnesses, school records, co-defendant records, and psychiatric/psychological expert testimony.
- Delaware Supreme Court, en banc, affirmed denial of postconviction relief after de novo review of the complete record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance—mitigation | Norcross claims unpresented mitigation would alter outcome. | State argues no prejudice; evidence cumulative. | No reasonable probability of different result; no error |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | Five instances tainted penalty phase | Claims procedurally barred or meritless | Some claims barred; others lack merit |
| Penalty jury instructions | Conscience of the community/weight language mattered | Instruction changes were proper and non-prejudicial | No error or prejudice from changes |
| Ring v. Arizona applicability | Delaware scheme unconstitutional for not requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt | Ring does not apply to Delaware as argued previously | Ring challenge barred; Brice controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice prong requires probability outcome would differ)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (mitigation must be weighed; outlines standard for prejudice from mitigation failure)
- Outten v. Kearney, 464 F.3d 401 (3d Cir. 2006) (juror-impact prejudice discussion in Delaware context)
- Williams v. Beard, 637 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (de novo review of mitigation evidence; standard applied on remand)
- Brice v. State, 815 A.2d 314 (Del. 2003) ( Ring applicability limited to narrowing phase; Delaware procedure)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (requires jury findings on aggravation and weighing process)