Opinion ID: 2113362
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Smith's Contentions

Text: Smith argues that Butcher's testimony that Smith said, They trying to get me habitual, was inadmissible. Smith contends that the jury would understand that the word habitual was shorthand for habitual offender and that Butcher was, in effect, telling the jury that Smith was a career criminal. As a result, Smith claims that evidence of his criminal past was introduced in violation of Delaware Rule of Evidence 404(a). [2] Smith also argues that Butcher's testimony that Butcher asked Smith what the State offered him in the plea negotiations and Smith replied, Ten, was inadmissible. Smith claims that this evidence of plea negotiations was introduced in violation of Delaware Rule of Evidence 410. [3] Smith contends that the trial judge should have granted a mistrial because of these comments. [4]