Sutton v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed Sutton's convictions after independently reviewing the record under the withdrawal procedure for an appeal deemed potentially frivolous. It held that the Superior Court did not plainly err by failing to give a defense-of-others instruction, that the pandemic-related delay did not violate Sutton's speedy-trial right, and that the lesser-included-offense instructions were properly given. The Court also rejected Sutton's claims concerning allegedly inconsistent testimony, edited or withheld evidence, inconsistent verdicts, and the presence of the chief investigating officer at trial.