Opinion ID: 2257771
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of the Racial Epithet

Text: Zebroski's first argument on appeal is that the Superior Court erred in allowing testimony concerning a racial remark attributed to him. During trial, Brian Morris testified that, shortly after the incident, Zebroski admitted to shooting Hammond at point blank range because Hammond wouldn't give up the money. Over the course of its direct examination of Morris, the State elicited the additional testimony that Zebroski, referring to Hammond, declared that he shot the nigger. Zebroski contends that, at most, the alleged racial statement is evidence of an unacceptable point of view. Zebroski argues that the statement alone is not probative of an intent on his part to kill Hammond out of a sense of racial hatred. In admitting the statement at trial over defendant's objection, the Superior Court relied on the State's proffer, based on pre-trial materials, that Morris' testimony would be highly effective in rebutting defendant's contention that the shooting was accidental. The Superior Court concluded as follows: [I]t would appear, weighing the evidence under Delaware Rule of Evidence 403, that the probative value of the evidence, including the epithet, outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice. The statements not only represent, if they're believed, admissions by the defendant that he committed the offense, they are highly probative on the defendant's state of mind in terms of his intent and his motive. [7] We review the ruling of the Superior Court for abuse of discretion. [8] The admission of the racial epithet in this case, particularly in light of other testimony provided by Morris tending to negate Zebroski's claim of accident, raises special concerns. In Weddington v. State, this Court held that the improper injection of race as an issue into a criminal proceeding violates a defendant's constitutional right of due process. [9] The defendant in Weddington, a black male, was accused of killing a white female. On cross-examination, the prosecution asked the defendant whether he had once persuaded two friends to accompany him on a trip to visit the victim with the promise that she and her friends were loose white women. [10] The prosecutor acknowledged that he had no factual basis for the question and had posed it to the defendant for the purpose of retaliating against the defendant's own attacks of the victim's character. [11] The Court in Weddington held that such deliberate attempts to create racial bias against the defendant violated his basic right to a fair trial that is free of improper racial implications. [12] It is established that the introduction by the prosecution of racial material in a criminal proceeding violates the Due Process Clauses of both the United States and Delaware Constitutions in cases where the purpose for such introduction is to establish a defendant's abstract belief and/or to create bias against the defendant. [13] We find, however, that the racial statement admitted in Zebroski's trial is distinguishable from such cases, both in its relevance and in the purpose for its admission. Morris' testimony concerning the way he heard Zebroski refer to the victim evidences a plain feeling of contempt held by Zebroski toward Hammond and is therefore probative of Zebroski's intent and state of mind at the time of the shooting. We agree with the Superior Court that the remark, though unfortunate and possibly inflammatory, was tied into the offense and ... tied into the specific victim of the offense. [14] From the record, we find no indication that the Superior Court abused its discretion when it determined that evidence of Zebroski's declared racial epithet was relevant and sufficiently probative. We hold that the introduction into evidence of the racial epithet in the context of this case was proper where the evidence indicated more than mere abstract belief and was relevant to the issues involved. [15]