Case Detail
CitationEley v. State, 11 A.3d 226 (Del. 2010)
CrimeNon-violent, other
StateDE
Pros. First NameUKN
Pros. Last NameUKN
FederalNo
Trial Year2008
BodySupreme court
OpinionDefendant was convicted in the Superior Court of Sussex County, Delaware of possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited (PDWPP). The Supreme Court of Delaware held that the jury should have been told to disregard prosecutor's statement during rebuttal closing argument which contradicted jury instruction, and failure to so instruct jury was not harmless. "The prosecutor's remark-upheld by the trial judge-was inconsistent with the earlier jury instruction and the argument defense counsel made in reliance upon them. The jury should have been told to disregard the prosecutor's argument based upon that inconsistent definition. We have explained that defendants “enjoy the ‘unqualified right’ to a correct statement of the law.”
Determination Year2010
Misconduct TypeT
C/S EffectVacate conviction or sentence
Pros. Misc. ReportedUKN
SanctionsUKN
Sanction TypeUKN
Web linkhttps://casetext.com/case/eley-v-state-6/#.UzYzdPldUko