Iverson v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed Iverson’s convictions, holding that an outdated stalking instruction and the absence of specific-unanimity instructions did not constitute reversible plain error because neither likely affected the verdict. It also held that the Superior Court properly admitted the victim’s prior statements under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing hearsay exception, applying abuse-of-discretion review and finding that the State made reasonable efforts to secure her attendance. The Court concluded that Iverson’s conduct was intended to and did procure the victim’s unavailability.