Scott v. State
7 A.3d 471
| Del. | 2010Background
- Scott was convicted of second-degree murder as a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder, plus one count of PDWDCF and one count of endangering the welfare of a child.
- The Superior Court denied Scott's post-conviction relief under Rule 61 after a Commissioner recommended denial without merit.
- On direct appeal, Scott raised ineffective-assistance arguments; the Delaware Supreme Court later remanded for consideration of a Cooke v. State claim.
- On remand, the Superior Court again denied relief, holding Scott's claims were without merit, and not procedurally barred, under Strickland premisses.
- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial, concluding none of Scott’s ineffective-assistance arguments had merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Oster medical records | Scott asserts trial counsel failed to object to admissibility that prejudiced defense. | State contends records admissible under DRE 803(4)/(6); Oster injuries were not trial witnesses. | No reversible error; records properly admitted, no prejudice to Scott. |
| Suppression based on false affidavit (Franks issue) | Scott claims affidavit misled the magistrate about Oster residency, warrant invalid absent suppression. | Warrant supported by probable cause regardless of residency misstatement; counsel moved to suppress for lack of exigent circumstances. | Franks not satisfied; suppression not warranted; claim lacks deficient performance or prejudice. |
| Custodial statements and Miranda | Statements should have been suppressed due to lack of Miranda warnings. | Statements were voluntary and spontaneous; Miranda not triggered. | Miranda not applicable; no error in denying suppression. |
| Cooke v. State claim viability | Counsel refused to pursue insanity defense despite request; violates defendant rights per Cooke. | Cooke inapplicable; no explicit demand for insanity defense; strategy within professional discretion. | Cooke inapplicable and no actual demand; claim denied. |
| General failure-to-adequately plead prejudice in ineffective assistance | Scott contends counsel performed deficiently across multiple claims without specific prejudice. | Scott failed to articulate concrete prejudice; standard Strickland requires specific allegations of actual prejudice. | Claims fail for lack of specific factual prejudice; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Capano v. State, 889 A.2d 968 (Del. 2006) (standard of review for denial of post-conviction relief)
- Outten v. State, 720 A.2d 547 (Del. 1998) (same standard of review guidance for post-conviction claims)
- Jackson v. State, 990 A.2d 1281 (Del. 2009) (upright review of trial-fact findings; clearly erroneous standard)
- Ramon v. Ramon, 963 A.2d 128 (Del. 2008) (upholds factual findings unless clearly wrong)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (defendant's ultimate authority to decide on appeal, but not right to compel counsel)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1985) (counsel's strategic decisions protected; not every argument must be raised)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1978) (Franks remedy for knowingly or recklessly false statements in a warrant)
- Cooke v. State, 977 A.2d 803 (Del. 2009) (insanity defense confrontation; applicability to post-conviction claims)