Supreme Court of Delaware

Mark J. Manna, Defendant Below-Appellant v. State of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee

February 29, 20082008 Del. LEXIS 87

Summary

The court held that Manna was entitled to present reputation evidence of honesty and truthfulness because robbery involves dishonest conduct and the evidence was offered under the rule permitting an accused to introduce a pertinent character trait. The trial court erred by applying the witness-impeachment rule and by excluding all character evidence under the balancing rule, although reasonable limits on the number of witnesses were permissible. The court also upheld the denial of a missing-evidence instruction because Manna showed neither bad faith nor prejudice. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Holding

  • Admissibility of character evidence offered by the accused. A defendant charged with robbery may offer reputation evidence of honesty and truthfulness as a pertinent character trait under D.R.E. 404(a)(1), even when the prosecution has not attacked the defendant's character for truthfulness. The trial court erred as a matter of law by applying D.R.E. 608(a)(2) to exclude the evidence and abused its discretion by excluding all character witnesses under D.R.E. 403.
  • Missing-evidence instruction. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Manna's request for a missing-evidence instruction concerning unavailable notes because Manna conceded there was no bad faith and failed to demonstrate prejudice or insufficiency of the remaining evidence.

Docket 272, 2007

Cited authorities

  • Rule 608(a)
  • Rule 608(a)
  • Rule 404(a)(3)
  • Rule 404(a)
  • Rule 404(a)(2)
  • Rule 404(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence
  • Fed. R. Evid., 14
  • Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF