Opinion ID: 2444929
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scott's First Claim

Text: Scott first claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the admission of Kelly and Ester Oster's medical records documenting their injuries and treatment, when neither witness testified at trial. Although the jury found Scott not guilty of the assault charges involving Kelly and Ester Oster, Scott argues that his counsel's failure to object prejudiced him, because the medical records contradicted his defense of extreme emotional distress. That contradiction, Scott contends, caused the jury to convict him of having a reckless disregard for human life, i.e., second-degree murder. [25] Scott's claim fails for two reasons. First, the trial court properly admitted Kelly and Ester Oster's medical records into evidence as hearsay exceptions under Delaware Uniform Rules of Evidence (DRE) 803(4) and 803(6). [26] Therefore, Scott's counsel would not have successfully prevented the admission of these documents, regardless of whether the Osters testified. Moreover, Scott was acquitted of the two assault charges involving Kelly and Ester Oster. His second-degree murder conviction rests on a totally separate basisthe injuries he inflicted on Edna Crown, resulting in her death. Because Scott cannot show actual prejudice, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion by denying Scott's claim.