Opinion ID: 4556289
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reference to Sarah as “victim”

Text: We turn now to Green’s attack on his trial counsel’s failure to object when each of the three police witnesses referred to Sarah as the “victim.” We count eleven such references: seven by Trooper Ford, three by Detective Anderson, and one by Detective Christie. Green’s argument traces its origin to our observation in Jackson v. State, a rape91 case in which the complaining witness’s consent was in dispute: 91 When Jackson was charged, the Delaware Criminal Code called the crime that had been traditionally and is now described as “rape” as “unlawful sexual intercourse.” 41 If there is no dispute that a crime has, in fact, occurred, there is no harm in referring to the existence of a victim. In a narrow range of cases, such as this, such use is clearly unwarranted. It is improper for a prosecutor to assume as a given, or to suggest to the jury, the existence of that which is in dispute. It is a practice to be avoided, but, as the opinion emphasizes, in the absence of an objection it does not constitute plain error.92 We further noted that where the accused’s defense, if accepted, would show that no crime had been committed, “it is incompatible with the presumption of innocence for the prosecutor to refer to the complaining witness as the ‘victim.’”93 In Mason v. State, however, we held that “reference to a complainant as a ‘victim’ is not objectionable in all cases where the commission of a crime is disputed; it is only objectionable in those cases where consent is the sole defense.”94 In this case, because of Sarah’s age, consent was not available as a defense. It therefore cannot be said that the failure to make an objection that would be directly contrary to our holding in Mason was objectively unreasonable.95 92 600 A.2d 21, 25 (Del. 1991). 93 Id. 94 692 A.2d 413 (Table), 1997 WL 90780, at  (Del. 1997). 95 This holding should not be viewed as an affirmation of Mason’s holding that references to a complainant as the “victim” are only objectionable in cases where the sole defense is consent. Other opinions, including Jackson, suggest that the practice is objectionable whenever the defense, as here, is that no crime was committed against the complainant. Because we find that it would be objectively reasonable for Green’s counsel to rely on Mason, we need not address this tension between these two perspectives. 42