Richardson v. State
43 A.3d 906
Del.2012Background
- Richardson sexually assaulted his relatives, Brenda (age ~6) and Linda (age ~10), in Kinard's Wilmington home between 2001–2005; incidents included oral sex, vaginal fingering, and intercourse; accusations surfaced years later leading to trial.
- CAC interviewed both girls; videotaped interviews were admitted at trial over objection; interviewer explained RATAC protocol and testified that victims' disclosures are a process and that it is evident when a child is truthful.
- Richardson denied the allegations; jury convicted on four of six charges and sentenced to 50 years imprisonment.
- The State relied on prior statements under Delaware § 3507 to provide substantive evidence, supplemented by the CAC interviews.
- Richardson challenged the CAC interviewer’s testimony as vouching and asked for limiting instructions; trial court did not grant a curative instruction.
- The Superior Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the CAC interviewer’s testimony to be improper vouching and the limiting instruction warranted
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAC interviewer testimony vouchs for credibility under §3507 | Richardson | State | Reversed on this issue; improper vouching required reversal |
| Whether the RATAC-interviewer testimony was admissible to support §3507 statements | Richardson | State | Error to admit; not a proper foundation; cumulative and prejudicial |
| Whether a curative instruction was required after embarrassing testimony | Richardson | State | Trial court abused discretion by not giving curative instruction |
| Whether § 3507 can trump other admissibility rules | Richardson | State | Statute does not trump other admissibility limits; used improperly |
| Whether the CAC videotapes were cumulative or could be excluded | Richardson | State | Court notes potential cumulativeness; reversal based on vouching finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodlin v. State, 3 A.3d 1084 (Del. 2010) (recurring problems with admissibility of out-of-court statements)
- Blake v. State, 3 A.3d 1077 (Del. 2010) (addressed admissibility and foundation for § 3507 statements)
- Stevens v. State, 3 A.3d 1070 (Del. 2010) (continuing concerns with witnesses and corroboration of out-of-court statements)
- Hassan-El v. State, 911 A.2d 385 (Del. 2006) (principles governing admissibility of out-of-court statements)
- Capano v. State, 781 A.2d 556 (Del. 2001) (prohibition on bolstering credibility via other witnesses)
- Wheat v. State, 527 A.2d 269 (Del. 1987) (prohibits bolstering credibility; proper use of prior statements)
- Harris v. State, 991 A.2d 1135 (Del. 2010) (standard for evidentiary review of rulings)