State v. Stevens, 0808022374

Background

In May 2009 a jury convicted Jonathan L. Stevens of first‑degree robbery, possession of a firearm during a felony, and related offenses; he was sentenced as a habitual offender to effectively 58 years; the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed in 2010.
Stevens filed a timely pro se Rule 61 postconviction motion; the Supreme Court remanded for appointment of counsel and Stevens filed an amended Rule 61 motion raising claims of ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct (failure to redact), a Brady violation, cumulative error, and requesting an evidentiary hearing.
Central trial evidence: a taped §3507 police interview of co‑defendant Jeffrey Boyd (admitted at trial), victim identification at trial, and testimony from Tamara Stratton who lent her truck and saw the defendants burning a cash‑register drawer; the defense did not present evidence or testify.
The contested portion of Boyd’s tape included inadmissible statements by Detective Roswell suggesting Stevens had committed other robberies; the Supreme Court previously held that portion should have been redacted.
The Superior Court (adopting much of the Commissioner’s Report) denied relief: it found counsel’s failure to review the tape and to insist on redaction was deficient but not prejudicial under Strickland; it found the State’s redaction lapse was misconduct but not sufficiently prejudicial; it found a likely but non‑prejudicial Brady omission regarding Stratton’s old shoplifting conviction; and denied an evidentiary hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility/foundation for Boyd’s §3507 statement	Stevens: trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to lack of a proper §3507 truthfulness foundation	State: prosecutor laid adequate foundation via Boyd’s testimony that he discussed the events and answered the detective’s questions "to the best of his ability"	Held: Foundation satisfied; no ineffective assistance for failure to object on that basis
Failure to review / redact Boyd tape before play (other‑crimes implication)	Stevens: counsel was ineffective for not reviewing tape so inadmissible detective commentary was played; prejudice warrants relief	State: counsel objected promptly during playing and made strategic decisions (declined curative instruction); other evidence was strong	Held: Counsel’s failure to review was deficient but not prejudicial under Strickland; no relief
Failure to request/accept curative jury instruction after inadmissible statement	Stevens: declining an instruction was unreasonable and foreclosed appellate relief	State: trial counsel reasonably chose not to draw more attention to the remark as part of trial strategy	Held: Decision was within the wide range of reasonable professional judgment; alternatively, any deficiency was not prejudicial
Brady disclosure of Stratton’s prior shoplifting conviction	Stevens: nondisclosure of Stratton’s 2000 shoplifting conviction deprived him of impeachment evidence and violated due process	State: conviction would be impeaching but evidence would not have changed outcome given corroborating evidence (Boyd, victim ID, recovered drawer)	Held: Likely a Brady suppression but no prejudice — conviction not overturned
Cumulative error / need for evidentiary hearing	Stevens: combined effect of errors deprived him of a fair trial; requests hearing to develop record	State: individual errors were harmless and not prejudicial; no material facts remain needing development	Held: No colorable cumulative constitutional violation; no evidentiary hearing required

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: performance and prejudice)
Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988) (Delaware adoption of Strickland framework)
Stevens v. State, 3 A.3d 1070 (Del. 2010) (direct appeal decision addressing admissibility and redaction issues in this case)
State v. Flowers, 150 A.3d 276 (Del. 2016) (discussing §3507 foundation requirements and counsel’s strategic waiver)
Starling v. State, 882 A.2d 747 (Del. 2005) (Brady three‑prong analysis cited)
Hughes v. State, 437 A.2d 559 (Del. 1981) (factors for assessing prejudicial effect of prosecutorial misconduct)