Opinion ID: 2391925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Forelady's Alleged Cocaine Use

Text: At the post-trial hearing in this matter, Banther attempted to call Robert Puryear as a witness. He was a drug dealer who gave a statement that he sold cocaine to the forelady during Banther's trial. Mr. Puryear refused to testify to that effect, however, and invoked his rights under the Fifth Amendment. The State refused to offer him immunity. Banther then attempted to introduce Mr. Puryear's written statement to an investigator in which he indicated that the forelady had been buying $600 to $700 worth of cocaine per week from him during the trial. The Superior Court excluded that statement from evidence as hearsay. Banther argues that ruling was erroneous because the statement is admissible as a statement against penal interest, pursuant to Delaware Uniform Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3). The expanded record reflects that several months after Banther's trial, Smith was hospitalized for mental health treatment and also tested positive for cocaine use. On remand, Smith did not admit using cocaine during Banther's trial, but did testify that she had gotten herself clean and sober. The Superior Court ruled that, even if Smith was using cocaine during his trial, Banther's claim involves an alleged internal, not an external, influence which is insufficient to impeach the jury verdict. [8]