Wililams v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed Williams’s convictions, holding that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by denying mistrial motions based on the victims’ mother’s brief outbursts or repeated references to Cyree. The court concluded that the outbursts were unlikely to mislead or prejudice the jury, the trial court’s curative instruction was adequate, and Williams had not shown that the Cyree-related testimony was inadmissible or prejudicial. The court also rejected Williams’s confrontation claim because no testimonial statement by Cyree was introduced. No separate opinions were filed.