Case Title: Burns v. Delaware

Citation: 

Docket Number: 77, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-09-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT H. BURNS, JR., 
§ 
 
 
§ 
No. 77, 2012 
 
Defendant Below- 
§ 
 
Appellant, 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
v. 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
§ 
ID No. 0605017137 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 6, 2013 
Decided:  September 25, 2013 
 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
Upon appeal from the Superior Court.  AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
Eugene J. Maurer, Jr., Esquire, of Wilmington, Delaware for Appellant. 
 
Elizabeth R. McFarlan, Esquire, and Josette D. Manning, Esquire (argued), of the 
Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellee. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RIDGELY, Justice: 
2 
 
Robert Burns was convicted by a Superior Court jury of several counts of 
varying degrees of sexual assault against children.  We have affirmed Burns’ 
conviction on direct appeal.1  Now, Burns seeks post-conviction relief and argues 
that he received inadequate assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Burns claims his trial counsel erred 
in the following ways:  by not affirmatively recommending Burns take an plea 
deal, by eliciting testimony from an adverse witness that could have implied Burns 
invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence, by waiving certain foundational 
requirements to out-of-court statements, by permitting a characterization of the 
complaining witnesses as “victims,” and by failing to object to the State’s 
summation.  Finally, Burns claims that the cumulative effect of his defense 
counsel’s actions resulted in an unfair trial.  The Superior Court adopted the 
findings of a Commissioner and denied Burns’ motion for post-conviction relief.  
We find no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s denial of Burns’ motion for 
postconviction relief.  Accordingly, we affirm.  
Facts and Procedural History 
In April of 2006, Robert Burns (“Burns”) attended the twelfth birthday party 
of his niece Sara Ames.2  Upon seeing Burns, Sara’s sister, Tina, recalled several 
occasions when Burns had inappropriately touched her.  Tina conferred with Sara, 
                                          
 
1 Burns v. State, 2009 WL 2490253 (Del. Aug. 17, 2009).  
2 Pseudonyms have been assigned to the two complainants. 
3 
 
who also recalled several similar incidents.  Eventually, Tina and Sara Ames 
informed their parents of these incidents.  Delaware State Police investigated the 
claims and arrested Burns.  
Prior to trial, the prosecutor met with Burns’ defense counsel (“Counsel”), to 
propose a plea offer.  The prosecutor offered to permit Burns to plead guilty to two 
counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree, and the State would 
recommend a probationary sentence.  Burns would also have to register as a sex 
offender.  Counsel conveyed the terms of the plea deal to Burns.  Burns decided 
not to take the deal.  
Burns was convicted by a Superior Court jury of Rape Second Degree, two 
counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact Second Degree, and one count of Continuous 
Sexual Abuse of a Child.  The jury found Burns not guilty on all charges relating to 
Tina, except for one count of Unlawful Sexual Contact Second Degree.  On that 
charge the jury could not agree.  Burns was sentenced to 41 years in prison, 
suspended after 35 years for two years of probation.  We affirmed on direct appeal.  
Burns moved for postconviction relief through new counsel, alleging that he 
was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.  The Superior Court adopted a 
4 
 
Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, denying Burns’ motion for 
postconviction relief.3  This appeal followed.  
During the pendency of this appeal, the United States Supreme Court 
decided Lafler v. Cooper,4 where the Court addressed for the first time a claim of 
ineffective assistance of counsel that caused the rejection of a plea offer and the 
imposition of a more severe sentence.  The Court in Lafler determined that a 
defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel extended to the plea bargaining 
process.  We remanded this case to the Superior Court to address the application of 
Lafler.5  The Superior Court considered the application of Lafler and denied Burns’ 
motion for postconviction relief.6  
Discussion 
We review the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for post-conviction relief 
for abuse of discretion.7  We review questions of law arising from the denial of a 
motion for post-conviction relief de novo.8 
“[I]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the Assistance of 
Counsel for his defense.”9  Counsel must “consult with the defendant on important 
                                          
 
3 State v. Burns, No. 0605017137 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 26, 2011) (adopting a Commissioner’s 
report and recommendations dated Dec. 19, 2011).  
4 Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012).  
5 Burns v. State, No. 77, 2012 (Del. Nov. 14, 2012) (ORDER).  
6 Burns v. State, No. 77, 2012, No. 0605017137 (Del. Super. Ct. July 10, 2013) (ORDER) 
(hereinafter “Op. II”).  
7 Claudio v. State, 958 A.2d 846, 850 (Del. 2008) (citing Outten v. State, 720 A.2d 547, 551 
(Del. 1998)). 
8 Id. (citing Outten, 720 A.2d at 551). 
5 
 
decisions and [must] keep the defendant informed of important developments in 
the course of the prosecution.”10  Under the Strickland test for ineffective 
assistance of counsel, petitioner must show that “counsel’s representation fell 
below an objective standard of reasonableness”11 and that “there is a reasonable 
probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the 
proceeding would have been different.”12  In order to meet the second prong of the 
Strickland test, Petitioner has the burden to “affirmatively prove prejudice.”13  The 
Strickland test applies to Counsel’s actions during plea negotiations as well as 
during the trial proceedings.14  Prejudice in the context of plea negotiations is 
demonstrated when: 
[B]ut for the ineffective advice of counsel there is a reasonable 
probability that the plea offer would have been presented to the 
court (i.e., that the defendant would have accepted the plea and 
the prosecution would not have withdrawn it in light of 
intervening circumstances), that the court would have accepted 
its terms, and that the conviction or sentence, or both, under the 
offer’s terms would have been less severe than under the 
judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed.15  
The Court in Strickland cautioned: 
Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly 
deferential. It is all too tempting for a defendant to second-
                                                                                                                                        
9 U.S. Const. Amend. VI.  
10 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984).  
11 Id.  
12 Id. at 694.  
13 Id. at 693. 
14 Lafler, 132 S. Ct. at 1384 (citing Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1408 (2012)).  
15 Id. at 1385.  
6 
 
guess counsel’s assistance after conviction or adverse sentence, 
and it is all too easy for a court, examining counsel’s defense 
after it has proved unsuccessful, to conclude that a particular act 
or omission of counsel was unreasonable.16 
Burns’ Rejection of the Plea Offer 
Burns claims that his defense counsel failed to competently advise Burns 
during his consideration of the plea offer.  Burns argues that “any prudent defense 
attorney” would have found the prospect of his client facing a mandatory minimum 
prison sentence too risky, especially when the State has offered probation in 
exchange for a guilty plea.  Essentially, Burns argues Counsel should have more 
vigorously tried to persuade him to accept the plea offer.   
Counsel communicated to Burns the details of the plea offer, and he 
explained that Burns faced jail time if they were unsuccessful at trial.  Counsel also 
explained the downside of accepting the plea agreement, which included 
registration as a sex offender and losing the right to vote.  But Counsel stressed to 
Burns the plea was “generous.”  Prior to the trial, Burns repeatedly asserted his 
innocence and indicated that he would not accept any plea that would require him 
to register as a sex offender.  Throughout his representation of Burns, Counsel 
maintained that in his professional opinion, he believed that the case was 
“winnable.”  Counsel did not make a recommendation one way or the other as to 
whether Burns should take the plea. 
                                          
 
16 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. 
7 
 
In Lafler, defense counsel made an objective and plain error in advising the 
defendant as to the applicable law.17  As a result, the defendant turned down two 
very advantageous plea offers and, after being convicted, was sentenced to a 
mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison.18  The U.S. Supreme Court 
held that a fair trial does not cure ineffective assistance of counsel at the plea 
bargaining stage.19  The Court did not replace the traditional Strickland test, but 
rather offered an example of a Strickland analysis in the plea bargaining context.  
As to the prejudice prong of Strickland, the Court examined whether “but for 
counsel’s deficient performance there is a reasonable probability he and the trial 
court would have accepted the guilty plea.”20   
Counsel explained the benefits of accepting the plea offer in a letter to 
Burns.  Counsel clearly articulated to Burns the potential of mandatory 
incarceration in the event that he lost at trial.  In his letter to Burns, Counsel wrote, 
“The beneficial aspects of the plea offer are that you would be freed from the 
possibility of the mandatory incarceration that would be imposed in the event that 
you were convicted . . . .”21  Counsel also explained the downside of accepting such 
a plea, namely that Burns would have to register as a sex offender.  Counsel went 
                                          
 
17 See Lafler, 132 S. Ct at 1383 (noting that Lafler’s “attorney convinced him that the 
prosecution would be unable to establish his intent to murder [the victim] because she had been 
shot below the waist”).  
18 Id.  
19 Id. at 1386.  
20 Id. at 1391.  
21 Appendix to Appellant’s Opening Brief at A-3.  
8 
 
on to offer his professional opinion that the case could be won, but that success 
depended largely upon the credibility of witnesses at trial.  Counsel stated:  “The 
bottom line is that this case is one that can be won, but is also one that I cannot 
guarantee such a result.”22  Counsel presented Burns with enough information to 
make an informed decision about whether or not to accept the plea.  Counsel 
adequately informed Burns of the terms of the plea offer, the consequences of not 
taking the offer, and the consequences of accepting the offer.  It was not 
objectively unreasonable for Counsel to express his qualified professional opinion 
that the case was winnable.  The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in 
finding that Counsel’s conduct did not fall below objective standards of 
reasonableness.   
As to the prejudice prong, although Burns now claims he would have 
accepted the plea if Counsel recommended it, at the time of the offer Burns insisted 
that he would not accept a plea that included registration as a sex offender.  The 
Superior Court found that Burns failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland, 
as refined by Lafler, that but for Counsel’s actions, Burns would have accepted the 
plea offer.  The record supports this finding.   
                                          
 
22 Id. (emphasis added). 
9 
 
Counsel’s Questioning of the Chief Investigative Officer 
Burns next claims that during cross-examination of Chief Investigative 
Officer, Detective Grier, Counsel allowed, without objection, Det. Grier to raise 
the inference that Burns had asserted his Fifth Amendment right to silence.  As a 
result of Counsel’s failure to object, the Superior Court failed to give a 
contemporaneous corrective instruction.   
“[T]he Fifth Amendment, in its direct application to the Federal Government 
and in its bearing on the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids 
either comment by the prosecution on the accused’s silence or instructions by the 
court that such silence is evidence of guilt.”23  “While the State may not put a 
penalty on the exercise of a constitutional right, ‘every reference to the exercise of 
the right to remain silent [does not] mandate . . . reversal.’”24  Burns seeks to 
extend the principle that forbids the State or the court to reference the accused’s 
exercise of the right to silence to include the State’s witnesses.  Burns argues: 
“surely it is ineffective for the defense attorney himself, through imprecise 
questioning, to elicit the same information.”25  
                                          
 
23 Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965). 
24 Revel v. State, 956 A.2d 23, 27–28 (Del. 2008) (alteration in original) (omission in original) 
(quoting Lewis v. State, 626 A.2d 1350, 1358 (Del. 1993)).  
25 Appellant’s Opening Brief at 15.  
10 
 
At trial, during the cross-examination of the Chief Investigating Officer, 
Detective Grier, Counsel asked a number of questions about the police 
investigation: 
Q. Other than the statements given by the girls, what 
investigation did you do of the facts? 
A. I attempted to interview your client.  
Q. Other than try and say you attempted to interview my client, 
what did you do, did you go to the house and try to interview 
his wife? 
A. No I did not. 
 . . . . 
Q. So you did nothing except what you just said, you tried to 
interview my client?  
A. We conducted a forensic interview with the victims.  
Q. So the investigation in this case consisted of taking 
statements from the girls, and that was it, except you didn’t get 
a chance to speak with the defendant, isn’t that it, nothing else 
was done? 
A. That’s correct.  
. . . . 
Q. So you found nothing in their statements after listening to 
them live and playing them again that you felt warranted further 
investigation; is that correct?  
A. I attempted further investigation, I attempted to conduct a 
suspect interview.26 
                                          
 
26 Appendix to Appellant’s Opening Brief at A-6. 
11 
 
It is unnecessary to examine whether Counsel’s conduct fell below an 
objective standard of reasonableness, as Burns has failed to show prejudice.  Det. 
Grier merely stated that he was not able to interview Burns.  Det. Grier did not 
specifically reference the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent or even imply 
that Burns invoked that right.  Instead, the testimony supports an inference that the 
police conducted an investigation that was deficient.  Due to this line of 
questioning, Det. Grier admitted that he did not interview Burns’ wife, who would 
have been present in Burns’ home during the alleged acts of abuse.  We conclude 
that Burns has not shown prejudice under Strickland.   
Counsel’s Waiver of the Smith v. State Requirements 
Title 11, Section 3507(a) of the Delaware Code provides:  “In a criminal 
prosecution, the voluntary out-of-court prior statement of a witness who is present 
and subject to cross-examination may be used as affirmative evidence with 
substantive independent testimonial value.”27  Under this Court’s opinion in Smith 
v. State, for the provisions of § 3507 to apply, “the declarant must be called as a 
witness by the party introducing the statement and the direct examination of the 
declarant ‘should touch both on the events perceived and the out-of-court statement 
itself.’”28  The statement must be established as voluntary29 and the witness must be 
                                          
 
27 11 Del. C. § 3507(a).  
28 Smith v. State, 669 A.2d 1, 6 (Del. 1995) (quoting Keys v. State, 337 A.2d 18, 23 (Del. 1975)).  
29 Hatcher v. State, 337 A.2d 30, 32 (Del. 1975).  
12 
 
asked if the prior statement was true.30  This rule applies regardless of “whether the 
witness’ in-court testimony is consistent with the prior statement or not.”31  Finally, 
“the statement must be offered into evidence no later than at the conclusion of the 
direct examination of the declarant.”32   
At trial, Counsel waived the foundational requirements of § 3507 with 
regard to the statements of Tina and Sara Ames.33  As a result, four other third 
party witnesses were presented and cross-examined before Tina and Sara testified.  
Burns argues that such a waiver under these circumstances amounts to ineffective 
assistance of counsel.  We disagree.   
The Superior Court found that Counsel’s failure to object to the introduction 
of Tina and Sara Ames’ § 3507 statements was a tactical decision.  In an affidavit, 
Counsel explained that this tactical decision was aimed at highlighting the 
inconsistencies in the girls’ stories.  Further, Counsel wanted to be able to argue 
that there was a possibility that the statements may have been fabricated because of 
pre-existing animosity by the mother of the girls towards Burns.  Accordingly, the 
trial court found that Counsel’s conduct was reasonable.   
                                          
 
30 Ray v. State, 587 A.2d 439, 443 (Del. 1991).  
31 11 Del. C. § 3507(b).  
32 Smith, 669 A.2d at 8. 
33 Appendix to Appellant’s Opening Brief at A-9. 
13 
 
Under Strickland, the strategic decisions made by counsel are entitled to a 
strong presumption of reasonableness.34  “It should be noted that even evidence of 
‘[i]solated poor strategy, inexperience, or bad tactics do[es] not necessarily amount 
to ineffective assistance of counsel.’”35  Counsel testified by affidavit that he made 
a calculated decision to waive Smith in order to highlight inconsistencies in the 
stories of Tina and Sara Ames.36  This decision by Counsel was based on an 
agreement with the State that all of the State’s witnesses would remain available to 
be recalled to the stand if necessary.37  Burns has failed to show Counsel’s strategy 
was objectively unreasonable.  
Counsel’s Characterization of Tina and Sara as “Victims” 
In Jackson v. State, we held that the State should not use the term “victim” 
in cases where the commission of a crime is in dispute.38  In Mason v. State, this 
Court clarified the issue, holding that use of the term “victim” in an unlawful 
sexual contact case was only objectionable where consent is at issue.39  More 
recently, in State v. Pierce, the Superior Court applied Jackson and found that the 
                                          
 
34 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690.   
35 Archy v. State, 2011 WL 4000994, at *6 (Del. Sept. 8, 2011) (quoting Bellmore v. State, 602 
N.E.2d 111, 123 (Ind. 1992)).  
36 Appendix to Appellant’s Opening Brief at A-16. 
37 Appendix to Appellant’s Opening Brief at A-9. 
38 Jackson v. State, 600 A.2d 21, 24 (Del. 1991).  
39 Mason v. State, 1997 WL 90780, at *2 (Del. Feb. 25, 1997).  
14 
 
term “victim” was not inappropriate, as there was evidence that the victim had 
bruises and other injuries.40   
At trial, Counsel referred to Tina and Sara Ames as “victims.”  After the first 
time Counsel used this term, he clarified that the girls were “alleged victims.”  
During the testimony of Officer Giddings, Counsel allowed Officer Giddings to 
refer to the girls as “victims.”  While questioning another witness, Counsel himself 
referred to the girls as “victims.”  Later, Counsel asked the witness to read from his 
notes where the term “victims” was used multiple times.  Burns contends that by 
using the term “victim” himself, and by allowing others to use the term, Counsel’s 
conduct was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial to Burns’ case.  
We need not reach the question of whether Counsel’s conduct was 
objectively unreasonable, as Burns has failed to demonstrate prejudice.  Despite 
Counsel referring to both girls as victims, the jury did not convict Burns of the 
charges involving Tina.  In our decision on direct appeal, we found: 
The strongest evidence that the jury was not prejudiced was its 
final verdict: the jury convicted Burns on only some of the 
charges against him. Had the jurors been prejudiced against 
Burns, or misled as to the nature of the allegations against him, 
they would likely not have acquitted him of the Second Degree 
Rape and Second Degree Unlawful Sexual Contact charges in 
relation to Tina Ames. Therefore, the second Taylor factor 
strongly weighs in favor of the State.41  
                                          
 
40 State v. Pierce, 2008 WL 282278, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. 2008).  
41 Burns v. State, 968 A.2d 1012, 1020 (Del. 2009). 
15 
 
Although in the direct appeal we were considering the potential for prejudice 
resulting from a courtroom outburst by a witness, that reasoning applies equally to 
the present claim.  Burns was acquitted of some of the charges in relation to Tina 
Ames.  This weighs heavily against Burns’ assertion that he had been prejudiced 
by Counsel’s use of the term “victim” in relation to Tina Ames.  Petitioner has the 
burden of demonstrating prejudice; it was not an abuse of discretion for the 
Superior Court to find that Burns had not met this burden.   
 
Counsel’s Failure to Object During the State’s Summation 
Burns claims that the prosecutor improperly implied personal superior 
knowledge of the evidence during the summation and that Counsel should have 
objected.  “[P]rosecutors occupy a unique role in the adversary system because 
their ‘duty is to seek justice, not merely convictions.’”42  Because of this unique 
role, “[t]he prosecutor should not express his or her personal belief or opinion as to 
the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence or the guilt of the defendant.”43  
We recently held: 
[T]he prosecutor is allowed to argue all legitimate inferences of 
the defendant’s guilt that follow from the evidence. The 
inferences, however, must flow from the evidence presented. 
Conceptually, improper vouching occurs when the prosecutor 
                                          
 
42 Trump v. State, 753 A.2d 963, 967 (Del. 2000) (quoting Brokenbrough v. State, 522 A.2d 851, 
855 (Del. 1987)).  
43 Id. (quoting ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 3–5.8(b) (3d ed.1993)). 
16 
 
implies personal superior knowledge, beyond what is logically 
inferred from the evidence at trial.44 
A prosecutor may make logical implications based upon the evidence presented at 
trial.45  In Kirkley v. State, we found that when a prosecutor announced to the jury 
that, “[t]he State of Delaware is bringing this charge because it is exactly what 
Buckey Kirkley did,” such a statement was improper.46  We held, “by claiming that 
the State brought the charge because Kirkley committed attempted robbery, the 
prosecutor implies he has personal knowledge that Kirkley is guilty.”47   
In the present case, the prosecutor cautioned the jury during the course of the 
State’s summation.  The prosecutor explained that “what the attorneys say is not 
evidence” and if what the prosecutor says is different from the recollection of the 
jurors, “it is [the juror’s] recollection that matters.”  The prosecutor went on to say: 
[T]he person who is responsible for these things can be held 
accountable.  And the only person responsible for the hurt and 
the pain and the emotional trauma that you witnessed in this 
courtroom, the only person responsible for that is the defendant, 
Robert Burns. 
. . . . 
. . . . Those girls didn’t choose to be here.  They didn’t choose 
to make this happen.  He did it (indicating Mr. Burns).  He tore 
                                          
 
44 Kirkley v. State, 41 A.3d 372, 377 (Del. 2012) (footnote omitted) (citing Daniels v. State, 859 
A.2d 1008, 1011 (Del. 2004); White v. State, 816 A.2d 776, 779 (Del.2003)).  
45 Cf. Hughes v. State, 437 A.2d 559, 569 (Del. 1981) (reversing a conviction where the 
prosecutor’s summation “clearly misstated the evidence”).  
46 Kirkley, 41 A.3d at 377. 
47 Id. at 378.  
17 
 
the family apart.  Not them.  He betrayed the trust of those 
children and his entire family.   
. . . . 
Ladies and gentleman, he did this.  Hold him responsible.48  
Counsel explained that he did not object as the prosecutor did not use the pronoun 
“I” nor did the prosecutor “clearly express a personal belief of [Defendant’s] 
guilt.”   
Unlike the statements made in Kirkley, here, the prosecutor’s statements did 
not imply a personal superior knowledge of the evidence.  In Kirkley, the 
prosecutor intimated that the reason the State had brought the charges against the 
defendant was that the defendant was in fact guilty.  There the prosecutor 
improperly vouched for defendant’s guilt.  Here, the prosecutor made references to 
Burns’ guilt, but she did not imply that she had superior personal knowledge. Her 
assertion is merely a logical inference that could have been made based on the 
evidence.  By simply saying, “he did this,” the prosecutor did not assert personal 
superior knowledge.  The prosecutor drew an inference that could have logically 
resulted from the evidence.  The prosecutor also couched his statements by saying, 
“what the attorneys say is not evidence.”  This warning bolsters the conclusion that 
                                          
 
48 Appendix to Appellant’s Opening Brief at A-12. 
18 
 
the prosecutor did not imply personal superior knowledge.  Accordingly, Counsel’s 
decision to not object was not objectively unreasonable.   
Cumulative Effect 
Burns contends that even if the individual conduct of Counsel does not 
amount to ineffective assistance of counsel, the cumulative effect of Counsel’s 
errors warrants reversal.   
“Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be 
so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity 
of the trial process.”49  “Furthermore, the doctrine of plain error is limited to 
material defects which are apparent on the face of the record; which are basic, 
serious and fundamental in their character, and which clearly deprive an accused of 
a substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.”50 
We held in Michael v. State that “where there are several errors in a trial, a 
reviewing court must also weigh the cumulative impact to determine whether there 
was plain error from an overall perspective.”51  In State v. Savage, the Superior 
Court found that “some trials are so inundated with errors that the only recourse is 
to begin anew.”52  In Savage, the prosecutor had misrepresented evidence, vouched 
                                          
 
49 Turner v. State, 5 A.3d 612, 615 (Del. 2010) (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 
1100 (Del. 1986)). 
50 Id. (quoting Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100). 
51 Michael v. State, 529 A.2d 752, 764 (Del. 1987). 
52 State v. Savage, 2002 WL 187510, at *8 (Del. Super. Ct. 2002).  
19 
 
for the credibility of a witness, and speculated about defendant’s involvement in 
the crime, but he failed to refer to any evidence supporting those claims.53  The trial 
judge committed additional errors while giving cautionary instructions and 
improperly allowed the presentation of evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts.54   
The Superior Court found that the alleged cumulative error cited by Burns 
does not justify relief.  The court found that Burns’ strongest claim is that Counsel 
acted improperly by using the term “victim” at trial.  As discussed supra, Burns 
was not prejudiced by the use of this term.  Burns’ claim of cumulative error is 
without merit.   
Conclusion 
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
                                          
 
53 Id. at *4–6. 
54 Id. at *8