Spence v. State, 129 A.3d 212

Background

Defendant Christopher Spence admitted he shot and killed Kirt Williams and wounded Kelmar Allen at a Wilmington party; trial focused on whether the State proved charges beyond a reasonable doubt and whether Spence could invoke self‑defense or defense of others.
Trial produced testimony, forensic evidence, and Spence’s own admissions that he approached the victims with a pump‑action shotgun, had opportunities to retreat, and continued firing after the first shot.
During closing, the State used a PowerPoint; defense objected to several oral statements and multiple slides (including a slide showing the victim’s bloody body with the word “MURDER” in red, slides calling victims “helpless,” slides stating legal conclusions about self‑defense, and a slide saying “The defendant is guilty of all the charges against him”).
The jury convicted Spence of first‑degree murder, attempted murder, reckless endangering, and firearm offenses; Spence then moved for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court denied the motion.
On appeal the Delaware Supreme Court reviewed timely objections under harmless‑error (Hughes/Hunter framework) and untimely objections under plain‑error/Wainwright, addressing in particular the propriety and limits of PowerPoint use in summation.

Issues

Issue	Spence’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s oral statement that Spence “wants you to believe his story” was improper	That it was a general attack on credibility and amounted to misconduct	It referred to specific testimony about a Jamaican gesture and therefore was a permissible inference from evidence	Not misconduct; remark tied to specific testimony and harmless
Whether Slide 067 (victim photo + words “Terror…MURDER” in red) was improper and required reversal	Slide was inflammatory, intended to inflame juror passions immediately before deliberations, requiring mistrial or reversal	Slide was demonstrative of admitted evidence and argument; at most harmless error	Slide use was improper (inflamatory) but, under Hughes, error was harmless given strong evidence and instructions; no reversal
Whether PowerPoint slides labeling victims as “helpless” and stating “The defendant is guilty…” constituted prosecutorial misconduct	Terms like “helpless” and an unqualified statement of guilt improperly appealed to emotion and vouched for guilt	Slides were demonstratives/inferences from evidence; not prejudicial given instructions and record	“Helpless” slides were not improper given evidence; slide stating “The defendant is guilty…” was improper vouching but not plain error given case strength and correct jury instructions
Whether slides misstating self‑defense law (e.g., “There is no Self Defense”) required reversal	Slides mischaracterized statutory law and could confuse jury on justification defenses	Slides were demonstratives to be read alongside oral argument and correct jury instructions	Slides misstated law and were improper, but trial court’s accurate instructions meant the error did not meet Wainwright plain‑error standard; no reversal

Key Cases Cited

Hughes v. State, 437 A.2d 559 (D.C. App.) (framework for harmless‑error review assessing prejudice factors)
Hunter v. State, 815 A.2d 730 (Del.) (test for repetitive prosecutorial errors that undermine judicial integrity)
Baker v. State, 906 A.2d 139 (Del.) (standard distinguishing timely vs. untimely objections and applicable review)
Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096 (Del.) (plain‑error standard requiring prejudice to substantial rights)
Kirkley v. State, 41 A.3d 372 (Del.) (prosecutorial vouching doctrine—implying State’s personal knowledge of guilt is improper)
In re Glasmann, 286 P.3d 673 (Wash.) (reversal where slideshow repeatedly asserted guilt and used inflammatory imagery)
State v. Walker, 341 P.3d 976 (Wash.) (PowerPoint in summation held egregious where it altered exhibits and repeatedly proclaimed defendant guilty)
Watters v. State, 313 P.3d 243 (Nev.) (reversal where booking photo with “GUILTY” displayed during opening statement prejudiced presumption of innocence)
State v. Kalmio, 846 N.W.2d 752 (N.D.) (affirmance where trial court removed improper images and instructed jury to disregard)