Pablo Damiani-Melendez, Below v. State of Delaware, Below

Summary

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed Melendez's convictions because he failed to object at trial to the challenged testimony and therefore waived the claim absent plain error. The court held that the officers' testimony did not constitute plain error because one officer provided a permissible overview linking the crimes, the other gave brief testimony corroborated by a victim, and the State presented overwhelming evidence of guilt.