Swan v. State
2011 Del. LEXIS 486
| Del. | 2011Background
- Swan and co-defendant Norcross burglarized the Warren home in 1996, killing Kenneth Warren in front of his wife Tina and infant son Dustin.
- The jury recommended death by a 7–5 vote; the trial judge imposed death sentence; direct appeal affirmed convictions and sentence.
- Swan sought postconviction relief and a new trial, challenging evidentiary rulings, ineffective assistance, and sentencing procedures.
- Postconviction proceedings included DNA evidence discussions, Norcross recantations, and new mitigation evidence presented years later.
- The postconviction court denied relief; on appeal, this Court affirmed, applying Strickland prejudice review and procedural bars.
- The court held Swan failed to show prejudicial error or a reasonable probability of a different outcome under the totality of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Norcross’s statements at trial | Swan argues Sixth Amendment confrontation issues. | State argues statements were admissible as non-testimonial/co-conspirator admissions. | Procedural bar; claims previously adjudicated; no interest-of-justice warrant. |
| DNA evidence and trial counsel ailure to present | Defense alleges ineffective assistance for late/inadequate DNA investigation. | Counsel should have pursued and presented DNA evidence. | No reasonable probability of different guilt verdict; prejudice not shown. |
| Actual innocence/new trial based on new evidence | New DNA/shoulder injury/Norcross recantation could prove innocence. | Evidence insufficient to meet high actual-innocence standard or Rule 33 if no probability of different result. | No substantial likelihood of different outcome; Rule 33 relief not warranted. |
| Juror rehabilitation/for-cause dismissal of jurors | Defense failed to rehabilitate or object to dismissals of jurors who opposed death. | Trial court acted within discretion; voir dire properly conducted. | No ineffective-assistance claim; judge acted within discretion. |
| Ring claim and weighing of aggravators vs. mitigators | Ring requires jury unanimity in weighing or beyond reasonable doubt in aggravation finding. | Delaware scheme allows judge to weigh with jury recommendation; no Ring violation. | Claim procedurally barred; alternatively, Brice/Delaware law supports current weighing framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (ineffective assistance claim requires deficient performance and prejudice.)
- Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (U.S. Supreme Court 1968) (juror exclusion based on death-penalty views must not impair duty.)
- Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (U.S. Supreme Court 1992) (juror who will automatically vote death may be excluded for cause.)
- Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (U.S. Supreme Court 1999) (confrontation clause concerns in cross-examination and statements.)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (testimonial statements require confrontation unless exceptions apply.)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (jury unanimity in weighing aggravators not required; Ring focuses on aggravator finding.)