Case Title: Benson v. State

Citation: 375 A.2d 461

Docket Number: 

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 1977-06-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
375 A.2d 461 (1977)
Larry Nathaniel BENSON, Defendant below, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff below, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Delaware.
Submitted June 13, 1977.
Decided June 23, 1977.
Dana C. Reed, Deputy Atty. Gen., Dover, for plaintiff below, appellee.
N. Maxson Terry, Jr., Terry, Terry & Jackson, Dover, for defendant below, appellant.
*462 Before HERRMANN, Chief Justice, DUFFY and McNEILLY, Justices.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court of burglary in the second degree, 11 Del.C. § 825, and conspiracy in the second degree, 11 Del.C. § 512. He appeals, arguing that the evidence is not adequate to support either conviction and that the Court committed reversible error in admitting certain testimonial evidence.
The State's case against defendant was based on the testimony of an undercover police officer who participated as a "lookout" in the burglary with defendant. After describing what defendant did at the scene of the burglary, the police officer testified on direct examination as follows:
Defendant's counsel objected to the testimony but the Court, without explanation, simply overruled the objection and directed the Attorney General to proceed.
In our judgment, it was reversible error to admit this testimony since it was not relevant on either the burglary or the conspiracy charge, and it unfairly prejudiced defendant. "Fairness demands that criminal trials be free of unduly prejudicial matter and of matter which has a direct tendency of creating confusion in the minds of the jurors by introducing another issue. . .." State v. Amaral, 109 R.I. 379, 285 A.2d 783, 787 (1972).
The State's case depended upon the credibility of the police officer which had to be evaluated against the testimony of defendant, who denied participation in the crime and contended that he was being framed by the police. The words of Chief Justice (then Judge) Herrmann in State v. Boyd, Del.Super., 8 Terry 370, 47 Del. 370, 91 A.2d 471, 472 (1952) are particularly pertinent here:
Since the officer's comment was neither relevant nor material to either of the charges at issue, the impact thereof, if not its purpose, was to unfairly prejudice defendant in the search for truth which the jurors were required to make. Under all the circumstances, admission of the testimony was reversible error. See State v. Wyman, Me.Supr., 270 A.2d 460 (1970).
The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.