Rivers v. State, 183 A.3d 1240

In Sept. 2013, Joseph and Olga Connell were shot and killed; Christopher Rivers was arrested in Sept. 2014 and charged with first‑degree murder, related firearm offenses, conspiracy, and solicitation in a murder‑for‑hire scheme.
Evidence showed Rivers arranged payment through a middleman (Joshua Bey) to hire Dominque Benson and Aaron Thompson; Rivers made partial payments after the murders.
Extensive media coverage followed (dozens of items statewide); Rivers’ counsel commissioned a 1,050‑person statewide poll showing greater awareness in New Castle County and substantial pretrial belief in Rivers’ guilt.
Rivers moved to change venue from New Castle County to Kent or Sussex, alleging prejudicial pretrial publicity; the trial court denied the motion without prejudice.
At trial, co‑conspirator statements about post‑murder payment disputes were admitted under the co‑conspirator exception (D.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E)); Rivers objected that the conspiracy had ended at the murders and that the statements were prejudicial.
Rivers was convicted on all counts; on appeal he challenged (1) the venue denial and (2) admissibility of post‑murder co‑conspirator statements. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rivers)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Change of venue due to pretrial publicity	Publicity was highly inflammatory and a New Castle jury pool was prejudiced; polling showed many New Castle residents believed he was guilty and some were unlikely to change their minds.	Publicity was informational, similar statewide exposure made other counties no less tainted, and voir dire could screen jurors; no presumption of prejudice from coverage alone.	Denial of change of venue affirmed: coverage not so inflammatory as to presume prejudice; voir dire sufficed and court did not abuse discretion.
Admissibility of co‑conspirator statements made after the murders (payment disputes) under D.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E)	Conspiracy ended when the murders were completed, so post‑murder statements about payment are not "in furtherance" and are hearsay; also claimed undue prejudice.	In murder‑for‑hire cases the conspiracy’s objective includes payment, so statements about payment before final payment remain in furtherance; probative value outweighed any prejudice.	Admitted statements upheld: conspiracy encompassed payment, so post‑murder payment statements were in furtherance and not unduly prejudicial.

Powell v. State, 49 A.3d 1090 (Del. 2012) (pretrial publicity alone does not require change of venue)
Riley v. State, 496 A.2d 997 (Del. 1985) (need for "highly inflammatory or sensationalized" publicity to presume prejudice)
Sykes v. State, 953 A.2d 261 (Del. 2008) (standard of review for venue transfer denials)
Forrest v. State, 721 A.2d 1271 (Del. 1999) (voir dire adequacy and preservation of related objections)
Reyes v. State, 819 A.2d 305 (Del. 2003) (conspiracy generally terminates upon accomplishment of principal objective absent evidence of continued scope)
Jones v. State, 940 A.2d 1 (Del. 2007) (statements made before division of proceeds are in furtherance of a conspiracy)