Opinion ID: 2308059
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Judge's Statement to the Jury

Text: Finally, Wonnum argues that the trial judge violated the Delaware Constitution when the trial judge related her own recollection of Wonnum's age to the jury. During deliberations, the jury requested a definition of the term juvenile. The trial judge properly defined the term as meaning an individual under the age of 18 years. After giving this definition, however, the trial judge added [i]n this case the defendant, I think, indicated that she was 17 at the time that this occurred. Because Wonnum failed to object to this statement at trial, we review for plain error. [17] Plain error exists when the error was `so clearly prejudicial to [a defendant's] substantial rights as to jeopardize the very fairness and integrity of the trial process.' [18] Under the Delaware Constitution, [j]udges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of fact, but may state the questions of fact in issue and declare the law. [19] Although the trial judge improperly commented on Wonnum's testimony, the comment was harmless error. [20] Wonnum's age was relevant only to the charge of possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited. [21] More importantly, her age was never in dispute at trial. Wonnum herself and other witnesses testified that she was 17 and defense counsel referred to Wonnum as a 17 year old several times during closing arguments. Thus, any error resulting from the comment was inconsequential at best.