Title: Martin v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 48, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 19, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DEON E. MARTIN, 
§
§
No. 48, 2006
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
Court Below: Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
in and for Kent County
§
Cr. I.D. No. 0505014643
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: July 26, 2006
Decided: September 19, 2006
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 19  day of September, 2006, on consideration of the briefs of the parties,
th
it appears to the Court that:
1) Deon E. Martin appeals from his convictions, following a jury trial, of
burglary second degree, menacing and criminal mischief.  He argues that the trial
court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial after a witness
mentioned that he was on probation.  We find no merit to this argument, and affirm.
2) On May 20, 2005, Ronald Seney was at home with his girlfriend, Mary
Thompson, and some other people, when Martin started pounding on the door,
demanding to be let in.  Martin kicked the door open.  He was carrying a black
2
handgun, and he told Seney not to move or Martin would kill him.  Martin was
looking for a person named “JJ,” who was not in the house.  Martin checked all the
rooms, and as he was leaving, told Seeney not to call the police or Martin would come
back and kill him.  Seney waited about 15 minutes and then called the police.  The
police found Martin across the street from Seney’s house and arrested him. The police
did not find a weapon, but did find a black, square cell phone.
3) At trial, Seney and Thompson gave consistent testimony about the events of
that evening. In response to a question about “what happened then,” Thompson
testified that Martin said, “Don’t call the police, I’m on probation, or I’ll kill you....”
Martin objected to the reference to probation and asked for a mistrial.  After a
colloquy with the prosecutor, the trial court found that the witness’s inappropriate
comment was inadvertent.  The trial court denied the motion for a mistrial, but gave
a curative instruction.
4) Martin argues that the reference to his probationary status irreparably
prejudiced the jury and that a curative instruction could not counteract that prejudice.
We disagree.  “This Court has repeatedly held that even when prejudicial error is
committed, it will usually be cured by the trial judge’s instruction to the jury to
Pennell v. State, 602 A.2d 48, 52 (Del. 1991).
1
Shelton v. State, 744 A.2d 465, 483 (Del. 2000).
2
3
disregard the remarks.”   Jurors are presumed to follow the court’s instruction,  and
1
2
the fact that the jury returned not guilty verdicts on several of the charges in this case
tends to establish that Martin was not prejudiced by the inappropriate reference to
probation.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby are, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Carolyn Berger
Justice