Opinion ID: 1942312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Robertson's Sandbagging Allegation

Text: Robertson's next challenge is to the propriety of the prosecutor's rebuttal summation, which Robertson characterizes as sandbagging. During the State's rebuttal summation, Llewellyn's attorney objected on the basis that the State's argument was sandbagging and moved for a mistrial. See Bailey v. State, Del.Supr., 440 A.2d 997 (1982). Robertson's attorney and the attorneys for the other defendants joined in the motion. Robertson's attorney argued that the prosecutor had made several inaccurate statements about Robertson to which he would have no chance to respond. Robertson's attorney was asked by the trial judge if he was requesting surrebuttal at that point. Robertson's attorney responded no. Although the trial judge refused to grant a mistrial, he cautioned the prosecutor: I have to agree with the defense that your rebuttal sounds more like a summation rather than a rebuttal, and if it continues, I will be forced to give the defendants surrebuttal. The prosecutor proceeded and concluded his remarks to the jury without further objection. The standard of appellate review regarding the trial judge's action following an objection that the prosecutor engaged in sandbagging is abuse of discretion. Bailey v. State, 440 A.2d at 1003. In discharging its function of appellate review of such matters, this Court has adopted a three-part analysis. Hughes v. State, Del.Supr., 437 A.2d 559 (1981). That analysis examines the centrality of the issue affected by the alleged error, the closeness of the case, and the steps taken to mitigate the affects of the alleged error. Id. In this case, Robertson's attorney joined in the prompt sandbagging objection to the prosecutor's rebuttal arguments. The trial judge agreed that the prosecutor's comments sounded more like a summation than a rebuttal and instructed the prosecutor to discontinue that pattern of remarks. When the trial judge denied the motion for a mistrial, Robertson's attorney declined to ask for surrebuttal, despite a direct inquiry from the trial judge on that issue. The prosecutor finished his rebuttal to the jury without further objection. Robertson's attorney made no subsequent application for either surrebuttal or a curative instruction. The record reflects no abuse of discretion. Bailey v. State, 440 A.2d 997; Hughes v. State, 437 A.2d 559.