Durham v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the denial of Durham's postconviction-relief motion. It held that Durham could not establish prejudice from counsel's failure to request an accomplice-credibility instruction or to object to the immunity agreement, given the substantial circumstantial evidence of guilt, and that his independent challenge to the trial court's failure to give the instruction was procedurally barred. The Court also concluded that admission of the immunity agreement was not erroneous because its terms reflected the governing immunity statute and allowed the defense to argue Smith's possible bias.