If you only remember one point about evidence law in Delaware, remember this: Delaware evidence practice is organized under the Delaware Uniform Rules of Evidence. Relevance starts at Del. R. Evid. 401, 403; hearsay starts at Del. R. Evid. 801, 802. Procedure, examples, and the opinions below hang off Delaware Uniform Rules of Evidence. Authenticity is a separate fight under Del. R. Evid. 901, 902. Depositions at trial: Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 30 and 32 govern civil depositions and trial use. Chancery Court practice follows similar deposition rules under Court of Chancery rules. Criminal cases use Del. Crim. R. 16; trial use of depositions requires Del. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) or another exception.
Hearsay: start with the definition
Most hearsay objections in Delaware are won or lost on the definition, not on an exception. Under Del. R. Evid. 801, 802, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Non-hearsay purposes — verbal acts, effect on the listener, notice, circumstantial evidence of state of mind, and impeachment — remain available when the proponent can articulate them without asking the jury to believe the declarant.
Layered hearsay (hearsay within hearsay) requires an exception or exclusion for each layer. Machine-generated data and non-assertive conduct sit outside the hearsay definition in FRE-aligned jurisdictions, but they still need authenticity and, often, expert or business-records foundations.
Delaware hearsay opinions
Curtis DEMBY, Defendant Below, Appellant v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…cond relates to the admissibility of the self-incriminating hearsay statement attributed by Lehman to Flonnory that was on the videotape. Lehman was called as a defense witness at trial. Outside the presence of the jury, Lehman acknowledged that he had escaped from Ferris School with Flonnory on January 3, 1995. He refused, however, to answer any questions concerning his conver…
On hearsay, Curtis DEMBY, Defendant Below, Appellant v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee speaks to the Delaware dispute in this passage: "Lehman to Flonnory that was on the videotape. Lehman was called as a defense witness at trial. Outside the presence of the jury, Lehman acknowledged that he had escaped from Ferris School with Flonnory on January 3, 1995." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Tyrone Lee JOHNSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…ourt ruled that Ar-terbridge’s testimony did not constitute hearsay because it was offered only to explain the ensuing activities of the police who arrested the three defendants six weeks later. Additionally, the trial judge noted that the testimony of other eyewitnesses, Downs and Daniels, had established the identity of the defendants as those who took part in the transaction…
Delaware opinions such as Tyrone Lee JOHNSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "Ar-terbridge’s testimony did not constitute hearsay because it was offered only to explain the ensuing activities of the police who arrested the three defendants six weeks later." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
John M. GANNON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…uder in their home. Gannon contends that this testimony was hearsay, and did not qualify under any exception to the hearsay prohibition. Gannon also argues that, by permitting this hearsay testimony, his rights of confrontation under both the Constitution of the United States and the Delaware Constitution were violated. We have concluded that each of Gannon’s contentions is wit…
On hearsay, John M. GANNON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee speaks to the Delaware dispute in this passage: "Gannon contends that this testimony was hearsay, and did not qualify under any exception to the hearsay prohibition." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Daemont WHEELER, Below v. STATE of Delaware, Below
Daemont WHEELER, Below v. STATE of Delaware, Below, 2012 Del. LEXIS 76 (2012)
…was violated when the Superior Court admitted into evidence hearsay statements by persons who did not testify at the trial. Wheeler’s argument raises two distinct questions: whether the testimony presented violated the hearsay rule and whether that testimony violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. We have concluded that both questions must be answered in the affirm…
Practitioners open Daemont WHEELER, Below v. STATE of Delaware, Below when Delaware hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Superior Court admitted into evidence hearsay statements by persons who did not testify at the trial." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Arba L. HENRY, Individually and Arba L. Henry, as Executor of the Estate of Paige M. Henry, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v
…o Paige Henry (“Mr. Henry or the Decedent”) is inadmissible hearsay, and he is therefore entitled to summary judgment in his favor. Generally, the facts are as follows: Plaintiffs brought a survival action and a wrongful death case against Defendants 2 due to the death of Paige Henry. Mr. Henry died soon after he was released from Nanticoke Memorial Hospital following gastric b…
Practitioners open Arba L. HENRY, Individually and Arba L. Henry, as Executor of the Estate of Paige M. Henry, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v when Delaware hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Paige Henry (“Mr. Henry or the Decedent”) is inadmissible hearsay, and he is therefore entitled to summary judgment in his favor." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Bruce Isaiah WRIGHT, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…ss the admission of prior out-of-court statements under the hearsay rule. At trial the State sought admission of prior out-of-court statements of several witnesses that recanted then-statements during testimony. The appellant objected to admitting one of the statements because he believed it was based, in part, on inadmissible hearsay. The Superior Court, however, could not dis…
Bruce Isaiah WRIGHT, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee is worth reading on Delaware hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "At trial the State sought admission of prior out-of-court statements of several witnesses that recanted then-statements during testimony. The appellant objected to admitting one of the statements because he believed it was based, in part, on inadmissible hearsay." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Christina OZDEMIR, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…Family Court records were inadmissible because they include hearsay. Accordingly, we reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Christina Ozdemir and Douglas Riley began a relationship in 2005. Ozdemir was living in New York at the time, but she moved to Delaware to live with Riley shortly after they began seeing each other. The couple had a son in 2007 and a daughter in early…
On hearsay, Christina OZDEMIR, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee speaks to the Delaware dispute in this passage: "Family Court records were inadmissible because they include hearsay. Accordingly, we reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Christina Ozdemir and Douglas Riley began a relationship in 2005." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Downs v. State
…rst, he argues that the Superior Court erred by admitting a hearsay statement relating to whether the SUV that Downs raided after the assault of Acobe contained a gun—the alleged theft of which formed the basis of the firearm-theft and person-prohibited charges—and that such error was not harmless. Second, Downs argues that there was insufficient evidence to support four of his…
On hearsay, Downs v. State speaks to the Delaware dispute in this passage: "Superior Court erred by admitting a hearsay statement relating to whether the SUV that Downs raided after the assault of Acobe contained a gun—the alleged theft of which formed the basis of the firearm-theft and person-prohibited charges—and that such error was not harmless." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Walking through Delaware facts
Use this walkthrough to see which Delaware authority does the work at each step.
A lawyer in Delaware wants to offer a medical record, a party email, and a statement the declarant made while believing death was imminent.
- Clear relevance and unfair prejudice under Del. R. Evid. 401, 403.
- If the email is the opposing party's, test Del. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) before the hearsay definition in Del. R. Evid. 801, 802.
- For the medical record, lay the business-records foundation in Del. R. Evid. 803(6) and the treatment purpose in Del. R. Evid. 803(4).
- For the deathbed statement, meet Del. R. Evid. 804(b)(2), then authenticate every exhibit under Del. R. Evid. 901, 902.
Delaware keeps hearsay, character, and authenticity on different rules inside the Delaware Uniform Rules of Evidence. Winning one does not win the others.
Party admissions
Statements of an opposing party are among the most important routes around the hearsay bar. Delaware treats them under Del. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Nothing about the statement need be against interest, contemporaneous, or based on personal knowledge — the theory is adversarial, not reliability-based. A party cannot complain that his own words are unreliable when offered against him.
Scope questions dominate practice: the party's own statement; adopted statements (including silence in circumstances where a reasonable person would deny); statements by authorized speakers; agent or employee statements on matters within the scope of the relationship; and, in criminal conspiracy cases, coconspirator statements during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. A defendant generally cannot introduce his own exculpatory out-of-court statement as a "party admission" against himself — the rule runs one way.
Delaware party-admission opinions
Timothy MERRITT, Claimant Below, Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Employer Below, Appellee
…se the Board: (1) failed to give conclusive effect to UPS’s admission of liability; and (2) prospectively determined an issue not before the Board, by finding that Merritt’s partial disability would end on a specific future date. Because we conclude that Merritt’s first claim of error is meritorious and reverse on that ground, we do not reach Merritt’s second claim. FACTS 1 On…
Practitioners open Timothy MERRITT, Claimant Below, Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Employer Below, Appellee when Delaware party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Board: (1) failed to give conclusive effect to UPS’s admission of liability; and (2) prospectively determined an issue not before the Board, by finding that Merritt’s partial disability would end on a specific future date." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Joseph A.C. WEBB, Jr., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…s-examination as a witness in his own defense; (ii) denying admission of impeachment evidence of a criminal conviction of a State witness during defense counsel’s cross-examination of that witness; (iii) overruling objections to admission of purported hearsay evidence; (iv) refusing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense; and (v) overruling an objection to the prosec…
On party admissions, Joseph A.C. WEBB, Jr., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee speaks to the Delaware dispute in this passage: "s-examination as a witness in his own defense; (ii) denying admission of impeachment evidence of a criminal conviction of a State witness during defense counsel’s cross-examination of that witness; (iii) overruling objections to admission of purported hearsay evidence; (iv) refus" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Jamil EDWARDS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…did not shoot Johnson. Rules 402 14 and 403 15 control the admission of evidence offered to show contradiction. 16 Rule 402 allows a trial judge to admit all relevant evidence except where a statute or the Rules of Evidence bar the evidence. 17 Relevant evidence is evidence “having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of th…
Practitioners open Jamil EDWARDS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee when Delaware party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Johnson. Rules 402 14 and 403 15 control the admission of evidence offered to show contradiction. 16 Rule 402 allows a trial judge to admit all relevant evidence except where a statute or the Rules of Evidence bar the evidence." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
William H. Klair and Irving J. Hollingsworth, trading as Klair & Hollingsworth v. Philadelphia, Baltimore and
…s, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5,” and objection has been made to their admission. Exhibit 1 is as follows: “To the Pennsylvania Company and the Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. “We, the undersigned, hereby authorize and empower E. A. Rogers, W. C. Coughlin, C. M. Leslie, F. J. Hayden, for us and in our name to make and execute any and all live stock contracts of…
Delaware opinions such as William H. Klair and Irving J. Hollingsworth, trading as Klair & Hollingsworth v. Philadelphia, Baltimore and are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "Exhibit 1 is as follows: “To the Pennsylvania Company and the Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. “We, the undersigned, hereby authorize and empower E. A. Rogers, W. C. Coughlin, C. M. Leslie, F. J." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Jeffrey D. SCOTT, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the admission of Kelly and Ester Oster’s medical records documenting their injuries and treatment, when neither witness testified at trial. Although the jury found Scott not guilty of the assault charges involving Kelly and Ester Oster, Scott argues that his counsel’s failure to object prejudiced him, because the medical r…
On party admissions, Jeffrey D. SCOTT, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee speaks to the Delaware dispute in this passage: "Kelly and Ester Oster’s medical records documenting their injuries and treatment, when neither witness testified at trial." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State v. White
…Evidence 404(b). Instead, because the tattoo constitutes an admission and is therefore non- hearsay under relevant law and the rules of evidence, the balancing test set forth in Rule 403 ultimately governs its admissibility. Under this standard, the tattoo’s unfair prejudicial effect does not substantially outweigh its probative value. Additionally, since the tattoo is an admis…
Practitioners open State v. White when Delaware party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Evidence 404(b). Instead, because the tattoo constitutes an admission and is therefore non- hearsay under relevant law and the rules of evidence, the balancing test set forth in Rule 403 ultimately governs its admissibility." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Farlow v. State
…that testimony was properly admissible as non-hearsay party admissions against interest under Delaware Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2).5 (11) Finally, Farlow contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the relevant question for this Court is whether, “after reviewing the evidence in…
On party admissions, Farlow v. State speaks to the Delaware dispute in this passage: "Delaware Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2).5 (11) Finally, Farlow contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
White v. State
…e Superior Court admitted the tattoo because it was a party admission, duct tape was used at the crime scene, and the risk of prejudice did not substantially outweigh its probative value.6 (8) After trial but before the verdict, the State received information of threats made against White after he testified. The Superior Court denied White’s requests for details about the threa…
White v. State is worth reading on Delaware party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "Superior Court admitted the tattoo because it was a party admission, duct tape was used at the crime scene, and the risk of prejudice did not substantially outweigh its probative value." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Business records
The business-records exception under Del. R. Evid. 803(6) is the everyday path for medical charts, employment files, bank statements, and maintenance logs. The foundation requires a record made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge; kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity; and made as a regular practice. A custodian or other qualified witness (or a qualifying certification where the jurisdiction allows it) lays the foundation. The opponent may still attack lack of trustworthiness when the source or method of preparation indicates unreliability — litigation-driven reports are the classic failure mode.
Do not confuse authenticity with the business-records exception. You still need to show the exhibit is what you claim it is; the hearsay exception then answers why the out-of-court assertions inside it may be considered for their truth.
Delaware business-records opinions
James P. Watts v. Delaware Coach Company, a coporation of the State of Delaware
James P. Watts v. Delaware Coach Company, a coporation of the State of Delaware, 44 Del. 283 (1948)
…qualify the hospital report for admission under the Uniform Business Records Act, Vol. 45 Laws of Delaware, Chapter 252, which reads as follows: “4704A. Section 19A. Business Records as Competent Evidence: — The term ‘business’ shall include every kind of business, profession, occupation, calling or operation of institutions, whether carried on for profit or not. A record of an…
James P. Watts v. Delaware Coach Company, a coporation of the State of Delaware is worth reading on Delaware business records because the court put the point in its own words: "Uniform Business Records Act, Vol. 45 Laws of Delaware, Chapter 252, which reads as follows: “4704A. Section 19A." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
James H. HENSON, Jr., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…cord failed to meet the requirements for admissibility as a business record under 10 Del.C. § 4310. The single question before us concerns the admissibility of the hospital record under that Statute in this criminal case in the light of the confrontation right. See opinion below at 319 A.2d 43 (1974). We note at the outset that the question may not be properly before us for rev…
On business records, James H. HENSON, Jr., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee speaks to the Delaware dispute in this passage: "Del.C. § 4310. The single question before us concerns the admissibility of the hospital record under that Statute in this criminal case in the light of the confrontation right. See opinion below at 319 A.2d 43 (1974)." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Shannon P. HICKLIN, Below v. ONYX ACCEPTANCE CORP., Below
Shannon P. HICKLIN, Below v. ONYX ACCEPTANCE CORP., Below, 2009 Del. LEXIS 160 (2009)
…d. Hicklin also argued that the trial court misapplied the “business records exception” of D.R.E. 803(6), when admitting into evidence various documents offered by Onyx. Specifically, Hicklin claims that the trial court erroneously credited the authentication of those documents by Jimenez, who was not their custodian. Rejecting these arguments, the Superior Court held that the…
On business records, Shannon P. HICKLIN, Below v. ONYX ACCEPTANCE CORP., Below speaks to the Delaware dispute in this passage: "Hicklin also argued that the trial court misapplied the “business records exception” of D.R.E. 803(6), when admitting into evidence various documents offered by Onyx." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Michelle BROWN, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Below, Appellee
…ce Dr. DuShuttle’s notation under the medical diagnosis and business record exceptions to the hearsay rule, 7 but only for limited purposes and not to prove the insurer’s knowledge that preapproval was required by the treating physician and that approval was refused. Specifically, the court instructed the jury that it could consider the notation only as evidence of Dr. DuShuttl…
Practitioners open Michelle BROWN, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Below, Appellee when Delaware business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Dr. DuShuttle’s notation under the medical diagnosis and business record exceptions to the hearsay rule, 7 but only for limited purposes and not to prove the insurer’s knowledge that preapproval was required by the treating physician and that approval was refused." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Mark BRUCE, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…eillance photograph. Admission of Teletype Report Under the Business Record Exception Bruce next argues that the trial court improperly admitted a computer printout from the National Law Enforcement Teletyping System (“NLETS”) 32 indicating that the car used in the robbery was registered to Rhonda Bowie. The trial court admitted the printout under the business record exception…
Delaware opinions such as Mark BRUCE, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "Teletype Report Under the Business Record Exception Bruce next argues that the trial court improperly admitted a computer printout from the National Law Enforcement Teletyping System (“NLETS”) 32 indicating that the car used in the robbery was registered to Rhonda Bowie." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Joshua McLEAN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…. 3 The Superior Court ruled that the hospital record was a business record and was admissible as such under rules now codified as D.R.E. 803(6). In so holding, Superior Court also ruled that defendant’s constitutional rights of confrontation had not been violated. We affirm. On the evening of November 20, 1983 Dalinda Hopkins and a passenger were driving south on Market Street…
Joshua McLEAN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee is worth reading on Delaware business records because the court put the point in its own words: "The Superior Court ruled that the hospital record was a business record and was admissible as such under rules now codified as D.R.E. 803(6). In so holding, Superior Court also ruled that defendant’s constitutional rights of confrontation had not been violated. We affirm." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Lester McKinley JOHNSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…eshed, official records, and the Delaware Statute governing business records as competent evidence (10 Del.C. § 4310) * , were all mentioned. It appears from the record that the Trial Court admitted the notes on the basis of the Statute, rather than on the past-recollection-recorded basis. Such admission was on safe ground. While the Statute omits the safeguard of the voucher o…
On business records, Lester McKinley JOHNSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee speaks to the Delaware dispute in this passage: "Delaware Statute governing business records as competent evidence (10 Del.C. § 4310) * , were all mentioned. It appears from the record that the Trial Court admitted the notes on the basis of the Statute, rather than on the past-recollection-recorded basis." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Charles TRAWICK, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…aryland commitment documents into evidence, pursuant to the business record exception to the hearsay rule, D.R.E. 803(6), by allowing the testimony of an Assistant State’s Attorney from Maryland, who was with the Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City. The Assistant State’s Attorney from Maryland, Salvatore Fili, testified on behalf of the State at the December 6, 20…
On business records, Charles TRAWICK, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee speaks to the Delaware dispute in this passage: "D.R.E. 803(6), by allowing the testimony of an Assistant State’s Attorney from Maryland, who was with the Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
Three present-sense and mental-state exceptions carry most of the remaining traffic in Delaware trial practice.
Excited utterance — Del. R. Evid. 803(2). A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused. Timing is elastic; composure defeats the exception even minutes after the event, while visible distress can preserve it for hours.
Present sense impression — Del. R. Evid. 803(1). A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. Contemporaneity is strict — seconds and minutes, not hours — and excitement is not required.
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition — Del. R. Evid. 803(3). Statements of then-existing state of mind (including intent and plan) come in; statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered generally do not. Intent-to-meet-another-person cases remain the hardest applications.
Declarant unavailable
When the declarant is unavailable under Del. R. Evid. 804(a), Delaware opens a second suite of exceptions. Unavailability typically includes privilege, refusal to testify despite court order, lack of memory, death or then-existing infirmity, and absence despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance. The proponent bears the burden of proving unavailability with specific facts — a bare assertion that the witness "could not be found" is not enough.
Former testimony under Del. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) is the workhorse once unavailability is shown: testimony given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, offered against a party who had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross, or redirect. Criminal confrontation analysis runs in parallel and is not satisfied merely because a hearsay exception applies.
Dying declarations
Dying declarations under Del. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) remain a narrow but decisive exception in homicide and, in many jurisdictions, civil cases involving the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. The foundational showing is the declarant's belief that death was imminent — not that death in fact followed within any particular time — plus a statement concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the impending death. Courts police coaching and narrative expansions aggressively.
Delaware dying-declaration opinions
Freddy FLONNORY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…to one of the decedents was not admissible pursuant to the dying declaration rule. Fourth, Flonnory contends that the trial judge improperly permitted a police detective to vouch for the credibility of a key prosecution witness and permitted the jury to consider the same officer’s opinion concerning Flonnory’s own credibility. Fifth, Flonnory submits that the trial judge erron…
On dying declaration, Freddy FLONNORY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee speaks to the Delaware dispute in this passage: "Fourth, Flonnory contends that the trial judge improperly permitted a police detective to vouch for the credibility of a key prosecution witness and permitted the jury to consider the same officer’s opinion concerning Flonnory’s own credibility." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Joshua McLEAN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…e.g., Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. at 407, 85 S.Ct. at 1069 (dying declarations); Ried v. Beto, 343 F.2d 723, 724 (5th Cir.1965) (public records); Hanly v. United States, 416 F.2d 1160, 1167 (5th Cir.1969) (business records). 7 . See, e.g., Thomas v. Hogan, 308 F.2d 355 (4th Cir.1962) (where a doctor's testimony and a hospital record containing blood-alcohol content test results…
Delaware opinions such as Joshua McLEAN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. at 407, 85 S.Ct. at 1069 (dying declarations); Ried v. Beto, 343 F.2d 723, 724 (5th Cir.1965) (public records); Hanly v. United States, 416 F.2d 1160, 1167 (5th Cir.1969) (business records). 7 . See, e.g., Thomas v. Hogan, 308 F.2d 355 (4th Cir." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
John W. LONGFELLOW, Sr., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…5 S.Ct. 337, 339, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895) (finding the use of a dying declaration did not abridge the constitutional rights of the defendant). In those cases where the statement does not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception the offering party has the burden of demonstrating particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66, 100 S.Ct. at 2539. 5 Within t…
Practitioners open John W. LONGFELLOW, Sr., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee when Delaware dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "S.Ct. 337, 339, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895) (finding the use of a dying declaration did not abridge the constitutional rights of the defendant)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Delaware v. James H. HENSON, Jr.
STATE of Delaware v. James H. HENSON, Jr., 1974 Del. Super. LEXIS 141 (1974)
…ght of confrontation is not absolute. Some hearsay, such as dying declarations, is admissible without confrontation. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). *44Beyond noting that the confrontation clause and hearsay rule “are generally designed to protect similar values” and “stem from the same roots”, the cases do not give a satisfactory rationale…
On dying declaration, STATE of Delaware v. James H. HENSON, Jr. speaks to the Delaware dispute in this passage: "Some hearsay, such as dying declarations, is admissible without confrontation. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State v. Benjamin F. Van Winkle
State v. Benjamin F. Van Winkle, 27 Del. 132 (1913)
…ng before this.” And then offered the same in evidence as a dying declaration, which was objected to by counsel for the prisoner for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court sustaining the objection. Pennewill, C. J.: The state has offered in evidence, as a dying declaration, a statement made, signed and sworn to by the *135deceased before a magistrate in a Philadelphia h…
State v. Benjamin F. Van Winkle is worth reading on Delaware dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "And then offered the same in evidence as a dying declaration, which was objected to by counsel for the prisoner for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court sustaining the objection. Pennewill, C. J." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Willie Bobby BARNES, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…detective was hearsay, and not admissible under either the “dying declaration” or “res gestae” exceptions to the hearsay rule. II. The admissibility of a dying declaration by a victim against an accused has long been recognized. However, the declarant must be “in contemplation or apprehension of impending death State v. Van Winkle, Del. O & T, 4 Boyce 132, 86 A. 310, 311 (1…
Willie Bobby BARNES, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee is worth reading on Delaware dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "II. The admissibility of a dying declaration by a victim against an accused has long been recognized. However, the declarant must be “in contemplation or apprehension of impending death State v. Van Winkle, Del. O & T, 4 Boyce 132, 86 A." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Ogg v. Ford Motor Company
Ogg v. Ford Motor Company (2020)
…tion. Plaintiffs argue the affidavits are admissible (1) as dying declarations under D.R.E. 804(b)(2); (2) under the residual hearsay exception pursuant to D.R.E. 807; or (3) in the alternative, admissible for expert reliance in issuing expert testimony under D.R.E. 703.6 Defendants argue that affidavits are inadmissible (1) as dying declarations because a there was a “signific…
Practitioners open Ogg v. Ford Motor Company when Delaware dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Plaintiffs argue the affidavits are admissible (1) as dying declarations under D.R.E. 804(b)(2); (2) under the residual hearsay exception pursuant to D.R.E. 807; or (3) in the alternative, admissible for expert reliance in issuing expert testimony under D.R.E. 703." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State v. William Cornish.
State v. William Cornish., 5 Del. 502 (1854)
…w that it was a case of murder by express malice. To let in dying declarations, the State proved that the wound had penetrated the skull, and that the person who washed it removed a small part of the brain; that the deceased said "he had got his furlough — he should die, and then they would hang the poor old man, which would do him no good." Mr. Smithers objected to any declara…
Delaware opinions such as State v. William Cornish. are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "State proved that the wound had penetrated the skull, and that the person who washed it removed a small part of the brain; that the deceased said 'he had got his furlough — he should die, and then they would hang the poor old man, which would do him no good.' Mr." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
Statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment under Del. R. Evid. 803(4) cover medical history, past or present symptoms, and their general cause when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The exception is not limited to treating physicians; statements to nurses, EMTs, and consulting clinicians can qualify when the diagnostic purpose is genuine. Fault and identity remain the usual battleground: "I was hit by a car" is often pertinent; "the light was green" usually is not; abuser identity in child-abuse and domestic-violence cases is heavily litigated.
Delaware medical-statement opinions
Thomas J. CAPANO, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…..................................623 1. Application of the Medical Diagnosis Exception ...............................623 2. Confrontation Clause Analysis of Statements Admitted Under the Medical Diagnosis Exception .................................................626 V. Lesser Included Offenses ........................................................627 3. Contentions of the…
Practitioners open Thomas J. CAPANO, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee when Delaware medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Application of the Medical Diagnosis Exception ...............................623 2. Confrontation Clause Analysis of Statements Admitted Under the Medical Diagnosis Exception .................................................626 V. Lesser Included Offenses ........................." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Preston TUCKER, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…a “concerning the offense” as hearsay made in the course of medical diagnosis and treatment, D.R.E. 803(4). Defendant fails to note that the trial court so ruled in post-trial briefing of the case below. This concession disposes of any claim of plain error under section 3507 in the admission of victim’s statements to hospital personnel. The record clearly supports the court’s f…
Preston TUCKER, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee is worth reading on Delaware medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "D.R.E. 803(4). Defendant fails to note that the trial court so ruled in post-trial briefing of the case below. This concession disposes of any claim of plain error under section 3507 in the admission of victim’s statements to hospital personnel." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Michelle BROWN, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Below, Appellee
…itted Brown to introduce Dr. DuShuttle’s notation under the medical diagnosis and business record exceptions to the hearsay rule, 7 but only for limited purposes and not to prove the insurer’s knowledge that preapproval was required by the treating physician and that approval was refused. Specifically, the court instructed the jury that it could consider the notation only as ev…
Michelle BROWN, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Below, Appellee is worth reading on Delaware medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "Dr. DuShuttle’s notation under the medical diagnosis and business record exceptions to the hearsay rule, 7 but only for limited purposes and not to prove the insurer’s knowledge that preapproval was required by the treating physician and that approval was refused." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Patrick WALTON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…s the admission of hearsay statements “made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms ... or the inception or general character of the cause or external course thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.” We review for an abuse of discretion the trial judge’s refusal to admit the hearsay sta…
Patrick WALTON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee is worth reading on Delaware medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "s the admission of hearsay statements “made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms ... or the inception or general character of the cause or external course thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Robert Scott McKINLEY and Deborah McKinley, h/w, Below v. Michele CASSON, Below
…other hearsay exception applies to Thomas’s testimony. The “medical diagnosis or treatment” exception26 is inapplicable because, although Thomas did ask for information from bystanders for the purpose of treating McKinley’s injuries, the bystanders did not give their statements for the purpose of receiving medical treatment themselves. The rationale behind the exception is that…
Delaware opinions such as Robert Scott McKINLEY and Deborah McKinley, h/w, Below v. Michele CASSON, Below are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "The “medical diagnosis or treatment” exception26 is inapplicable because, although Thomas did ask for information from bystanders for the purpose of treating McKinley’s injuries, the bystanders did not give their statements for the purpose of receiving medical treatment themselves." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
John W. LONGFELLOW, Sr., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…lable as. a witness.... (4) Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or the inception or general character of the cause or external course thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. 4 . D.R.E. 806 states in part: When a hearsay statement ... has been admitted into evidence, the credibility of the decl…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, John W. LONGFELLOW, Sr., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee speaks to the Delaware dispute in this passage: "Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or the inception or general character of the cause or external course thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. 4 . D.R.E." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Use of depositions at trial
Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 30 and 32 govern civil depositions and trial use. Chancery Court practice follows similar deposition rules under Court of Chancery rules. Criminal cases use Del. Crim. R. 16; trial use of depositions requires Del. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) or another exception.
Deposition use is always a two-layer problem: procedural permission to read or play the deposition, plus a hearsay path (often former testimony, party admission, or impeachment). Counsel who satisfy the civil or criminal procedure rule but skip the evidence-rule foundation invite a sustained objection; counsel who have a hearsay exception but failed to preserve the deposition under the procedural rule face the same result. Video designations, counter-designations, and completeness objections should be teed up before the jury is seated.
Delaware deposition / former-testimony opinions
David K. Ebersole, Jr., Plaintiff Below, Appellant, and William Becker, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. Morton
…for summary judgment were based on the pleadings and on the deposition of the plaintiff Ebersole taken by the defendants. No other depositions were taken in support of the motions nor were any affidavits filed in support thereof. In so far as this appeal is concerned, therefore, the facts pertinent to the issue presented are those appearing from the deposition of the plaintiff…
David K. Ebersole, Jr., Plaintiff Below, Appellant, and William Becker, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. Morton is worth reading on Delaware deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "Ebersole taken by the defendants. No other depositions were taken in support of the motions nor were any affidavits filed in support thereof." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. Robert ADAMS and Ethel Mae Adams, Plaintiffs Below
…y and prejudicial evidence unrelated to the issues; (b) use depositions from other cases without satisfying conditions essential to such use; *570 (c) proceed on a failure to warn theory which was not supported by the law or the evidence. In support of its contentions, Firestone argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it made numerous evidentiary rulings. Many of…
FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. Robert ADAMS and Ethel Mae Adams, Plaintiffs Below is worth reading on Delaware deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "In support of its contentions, Firestone argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it made numerous evidentiary rulings." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Elizabeth SAMMONS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Gail E. Sammons, Deceased, Plaintiffs Below
…disclosed opinion on causation and sepsis during a pretrial deposition. DFES counsel did not attend that deposition but asserts that he would have done so had he been put on notice that Dr. Bridges would opine on cause of death and failure to diagnose sepsis. Because Sammons did not put opposing counsel on notice that Dr. Bridges would so opine at his deposition, the trial judg…
Delaware opinions such as Elizabeth SAMMONS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Gail E. Sammons, Deceased, Plaintiffs Below are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "DFES counsel did not attend that deposition but asserts that he would have done so had he been put on notice that Dr. Bridges would opine on cause of death and failure to diagnose sepsis. Because Sammons did not put opposing counsel on notice that Dr." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Timeka GREEN, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. ALFRED A.I. duPONT INSTITUTE OF THE NEMOURS FOUNDATION and Freeman
…efusing to permit the presentation at trial of a videotaped deposition of an expert originally retained by the defendants-ap-pellees. We conclude that it was an abuse of discretion to prevent the use of such evidence at trial when the deposition, at the time it was taken, was intended for use at trial, and the pretrial order acknowledged its potential use by either party. Accor…
Delaware opinions such as Timeka GREEN, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. ALFRED A.I. duPONT INSTITUTE OF THE NEMOURS FOUNDATION and Freeman are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "We conclude that it was an abuse of discretion to prevent the use of such evidence at trial when the deposition, at the time it was taken, was intended for use at trial, and the pretrial order acknowledged its potential use by either party." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Ernest David OUTLAW, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…the vol-untariness of his confession and that a video-taped deposition of an absent witness should not have been admitted into evidence. I The Trial Court charged the jury that the burden was on the State to show by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant’s statement had been given voluntarily. Defendant argues that the jury should have been instructed to consider the st…
Ernest David OUTLAW, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee is worth reading on Delaware deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "I The Trial Court charged the jury that the burden was on the State to show by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant’s statement had been given voluntarily." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
William TEMPLE and Lorraine Temple, his wife, and Alfonso Crisconi and Marie Crisconi, his wife v. RAYMARK
TAYLOR, Judge. Plaintiffs seek to present portions of a deposition of Dr. Kenneth Smith, taken by plaintiffs in 1976 in a case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania bearing upon the knowledge of the health hazards of asbestos. Dr. Smith served as Medical Director of Johns-Manville Corporation from 1952 until 1966. Johns-Manville was a…
Delaware opinions such as William TEMPLE and Lorraine Temple, his wife, and Alfonso Crisconi and Marie Crisconi, his wife v. RAYMARK are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "TAYLOR, Judge. Plaintiffs seek to present portions of a deposition of Dr. Kenneth Smith, taken by plaintiffs in 1976 in a case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania bearing upon the knowledge of the health hazards of asbestos. Dr." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Sykes v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp
Sykes v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp (2018)
…deteriorating, and the parties arranged for expedited trial depositions and discovery depositions. Mr. Sykes deposition was taken on April 16, 2014, about six weeks after Plaintiff filed his Complaint. During a break, Mr. Sykes informed his counsel that he would not be able to proceed with the remaining portion of the deposition that day due to his condition. Subsequently, Mr.…
Sykes v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp is worth reading on Delaware deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "Mr. Sykes deposition was taken on April 16, 2014, about six weeks after Plaintiff filed his Complaint. During a break, Mr. Sykes informed his counsel that he would not be able to proceed with the remaining portion of the deposition that day due to his condition. Subsequently, Mr." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State v. Roberson
…om testifying at the proceeding or by means of a videotaped deposition or closed-circuit television” provided this “unavailability” is supported by expert testimony.4 A finding of “unavailability” under any of these criteria would then require the court to find that the statement possesses “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness” but, upon so finding, the statement is adm…
Delaware opinions such as State v. Roberson are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "om testifying at the proceeding or by means of a videotaped deposition or closed-circuit television” provided this “unavailability” is supported by expert testimony.4 A finding of “unavailability” under any of these criteria would then require the court to find that the statement" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
Authenticity is not a hearsay doctrine and it is not optional. Under Del. R. Evid. 901, 902, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Self-authenticating categories — certified public records, newspapers, acknowledged documents, trade inscriptions, and (where adopted) certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity — shorten the path, but most trial exhibits still need a sponsoring witness, distinctive characteristics, chain of custody, or process-or-system evidence.
Delaware corporate and commercial trials hinge on authenticated emails, board minutes, and ESI under Del. R. Evid. 901–902. Chancery judges scrutinize metadata and custodian declarations for business-record and authentication foundations.
Why authenticity gets its own section in every Delaware trial notebook:
- It is a condition precedent. An unauthenticated exhibit never reaches the relevance, hearsay, or privilege analysis in a useful way — the jury never properly considers it.
- Digital evidence multiplies the failure modes. Screenshots, social-media posts, text threads, and cloud downloads require hash values, account attribution, metadata, or a percipient witness who saw the content created or received.
- Chain of custody is authenticity by another name. Drugs, firearms, biological samples, and seized devices are excluded when the links from seizure to lab to courtroom are broken, even if a hearsay exception would otherwise apply to a lab report.
- Business-records shortcuts do not replace authentication. A custodian can explain record-keeping practices and still fail if nobody can say the particular PDF or printout is the record of this patient, this account, or this machine.
- Self-authentication is narrow. Counsel who wave a notarization or a letterhead and skip the rest of Rule 901-style analysis often lose when the document's contents are disputed.
Practical authentication checklist for Delaware trials: identify the exhibit; choose a 901 method or a 902 category; line up the sponsoring witness or certificate; preserve chain-of-custody testimony for physical and digital items; and separate the authenticity objection from any hearsay objection so the court rules on each.
Delaware authenticity opinions
Johannes R. KRAHMER and Betty P. Krahmer, Petitioners, v. CHRISTIE’S INCORPORATED, Respondent
…d have consulted with an additional source to independently authenticate their painting at any time after the purchase. Through the exercise of reasonable due diligence, the Krahmers could have discovered that the painting might not be a genuine work by Benson well within the limitations period. They failed to do so and now ask Christie’s to produce evidence and refresh its mem…
Delaware opinions such as Johannes R. KRAHMER and Betty P. Krahmer, Petitioners, v. CHRISTIE’S INCORPORATED, Respondent are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "Through the exercise of reasonable due diligence, the Krahmers could have discovered that the painting might not be a genuine work by Benson well within the limitations period." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Alexander WHITFIELD, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…instrumentality Whitfield used in his August 8 robbery. To authenticate the gun as required by D.R.E. 901(a), 1 the State elicited testimony from Jacqueline Johnson, one of the occupants of the car, that the tendered gun “looks like” the weapon in Whitfield’s possession “because of the tape” on the gun’s handle. Green could not identify the tendered gun. Whitfield’s girlfriend…
Practitioners open Alexander WHITFIELD, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee when Delaware authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Whitfield used in his August 8 robbery. To authenticate the gun as required by D.R.E." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Albert SMITH, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…ble, relying on the testimony of Alston and noting the self-authenticating features in the letter: So we have a non-expert opinion of a lay person based on his familiarity with the defendant’s handwriting, and we have internal communications in there that tend to self-authenticate the document as emanating from the defendant. So the objection as to authenticity is overruled. Sm…
Albert SMITH, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee is worth reading on Delaware authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "So we have a non-expert opinion of a lay person based on his familiarity with the defendant’s handwriting, and we have internal communications in there that tend to self-authenticate the document as emanating from the defendant. So the objection as to authenticity is overruled." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State v. Church
…erly admitted at trial, citing the purportedly insufficient authentication of that evidence. The Court concludes that the video was properly authenticated, and that Church fails to raise a genuine question of its authenticity. Thus, Church’s motion for a new trial is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND1 A. Procedural History On May 6, 2024, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Defend…
State v. Church is worth reading on Delaware authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "The Court concludes that the video was properly authenticated, and that Church fails to raise a genuine question of its authenticity. Thus, Church’s motion for a new trial is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND1 A." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Genesis Recovery Services, Inc. v. Edward L. Jordan,III -Administrator of the Estate of Sireta Snead
…ssed away. Defendant stated there were no live witnesses to authenticate documents and therefore no proof of who rightfully owns the debt. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY After hearing testimony at trial, the Court finds the relevant facts to be as follows: On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim with the Register of Wills for Decedent’s estate in the amount of $10…
Genesis Recovery Services, Inc. v. Edward L. Jordan,III -Administrator of the Estate of Sireta Snead is worth reading on Delaware authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "Defendant stated there were no live witnesses to authenticate documents and therefore no proof of who rightfully owns the debt." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State v. Hill
…o is not admissible at trial because the State is unable to authenticate the recording. Specifically, Defendant’s Motion asserts that the State lacks knowledge regarding who took the video, whether the video is of the entire incident, where the video was taken, or when the video was taken. The State filed a Motion in Limine to introduce the video on September 1, 2016. The State…
State v. Hill is worth reading on Delaware authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "State is unable to authenticate the recording. Specifically, Defendant’s Motion asserts that the State lacks knowledge regarding who took the video, whether the video is of the entire incident, where the video was taken, or when the video was taken." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Mills v. State
…at photographs of a forty caliber handgun had been properly authenticated by the State’s witness. We find no merit '11 Del. C. § 1448. 211 Del. C. § 1448. 3 11 Del. C. § 311. to Mills’ appeal and affinn. (2) In January 2014, Mills was arrested due to his involvement in a shooting that occurred on New Year’s Day in Wilmington, Delaware. He was subsequently indicted on charges of P…
Delaware opinions such as Mills v. State are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "State’s witness. We find no merit '11 Del. C. § 1448. 211 Del. C. § 1448. 3 11 Del. C. § 311. to Mills’ appeal and affinn. (2) In January 2014, Mills was arrested due to his involvement in a shooting that occurred on New Year’s Day in Wilmington, Delaware." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Practice checklist
- State the relevance theory in one sentence before naming an exception.
- Run the 403 / unfair-prejudice balance explicitly for other-acts and graphic exhibits.
- For character or other-acts evidence, identify the non-propensity purpose and request a limiting instruction on the record.
- Decide whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay for the purpose offered before hunting exceptions.
- Lay business-records foundations with time, knowledge, regular practice, and custodial qualifications — or a qualifying certification.
- Prove unavailability with specific facts before offering former testimony or dying declarations.
- Treat deposition use as procedure-plus-hearsay; designate and counter-designate early.
- Authenticate every exhibit under Del. R. Evid. 901, 902 (or the self-authentication path) before arguing hearsay.
- Preserve chain of custody for physical and digital evidence with named custodians.
- Search LawDiver for recent Delaware appellate evidence opinions before mediation or motions in limine.
Contents
- General standards of admissibility
- Character evidence
- Hearsay: start with the definition
- Party admissions
- Business records
- Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
- Declarant unavailable
- Dying declarations
- Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
- Use of depositions at trial
- Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
- Practice checklist
- Frequently asked questions
General standards of admissibility
Delaware starts every evidence dispute with relevance and unfair prejudice. Under Del. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and relevant evidence is still excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Preliminary questions of admissibility are for the court; conditional relevance and limited-purpose instructions keep otherwise-usable proof from becoming a Trojan horse for propensity or truth-of-the-matter use.
Delaware's Court of Chancery applies the same Uniform Rules of Evidence. Privilege disputes in corporate litigation often arise under Del. R. Evid. 502 and 501.
Practice tip: articulate the theory of relevance in one sentence before citing the exception. Lawyers who lead with "it's a business record" without explaining what fact the record proves often lose the 403 balance even when the hearsay foundation is clean.
Character evidence
Character evidence in Delaware is governed by Del. R. Evid. 404, 405. The default rule is familiar: evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. The same body of law then carves out the classic exceptions — essential-element character, accused-opens-the-door reputation or opinion, and other-acts evidence offered for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.
Other-acts notice, 403 balancing, and limiting instructions do most of the real work. In criminal cases, prosecutors who dump prior misconduct without a specific non-propensity theory invite reversal; defense counsel who open the door to good-character testimony without anticipating rebuttal create the very propensity inference the rules were designed to police.
Delaware character-evidence opinions
Charles R. GETZ, Jr., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…fall within the permitted exceptions to the prohibition of character evidence under Rule 404(b) of the Delaware Rules of Evidence (D.R.E.). 1 In argument before the Superior Court, the State contended that it should be permitted to present evidence of the defendant’s prior sexual contact with his daughter on two prior occasions. The State advanced three bases for their admissi…
Delaware opinions such as Charles R. GETZ, Jr., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "Rule 404(b) of the Delaware Rules of Evidence (D.R.E.). 1 In argument before the Superior Court, the State contended that it should be permitted to present evidence of the defendant’s prior sexual contact with his daughter on two prior occasions." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Ellen BRETT, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Gerald Z. BERKOWITZ, and Berkowitz, Schagrin, Coonin & Cooper, P.A
…e evidence falls squarely within the category of prohibited character evidence. Accordingly, we hold that plaintiff’s motion to compel was properly denied with respect to her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Brett also argues that evidence of Berkow-itz’ prior relations with clients is admissible under Rule 406 on the ground that it constitutes habit. We f…
Practitioners open Ellen BRETT, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Gerald Z. BERKOWITZ, and Berkowitz, Schagrin, Coonin & Cooper, P.A when Delaware character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Accordingly, we hold that plaintiff’s motion to compel was properly denied with respect to her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Mark J. MANNA, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…even if admissible pursuant to D.R.E. 404(a), the proffered character evidence was inadmissible under D.R.E. 403 because the “only point to be served by introduction of the evidence in question was to evoke sympathy for the Defendant.” We reaffirm that evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused is admissible under D.R.E. 404(a)(1), and “if the court finds…
Mark J. MANNA, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee is worth reading on Delaware character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "D.R.E. 404(a), the proffered character evidence was inadmissible under D.R.E. 403 because the “only point to be served by introduction of the evidence in question was to evoke sympathy for the Defendant." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Elmer E. TICE, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…mpression: May a defendant, charged with assault, introduce character evidence of the victim’s prior bad acts as an essential element of a self-defense claim? We conclude that the character of the victim is not an essential element of a self-defense claim. The evidence is admissible, however, under D.R.E. 404(b), 1 subject to the standards of Getz v. State, Del.Supr., 538 A.2d…
Delaware opinions such as Elmer E. TICE, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "May a defendant, charged with assault, introduce character evidence of the victim’s prior bad acts as an essential element of a self-defense claim?" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Flora HOWARD, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…The general common law rule, forbidding the introduction of character evidence to prove that a defendant acted in conformity therewith on the occasion in question, is codified in D.R.E. 404. The admittance of evidence to prove propensity to commit the crime which is charged is proscribed by subsection (a) of the Rule. Subsection (b) of the Rule “enumerates illustrative purposes…
Practitioners open Flora HOWARD, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee when Delaware character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The general common law rule, forbidding the introduction of character evidence to prove that a defendant acted in conformity therewith on the occasion in question, is codified in D.R.E. 404." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Delaware v. Kevin FLORAY, Defendant
STATE of Delaware v. Kevin FLORAY, Defendant, 715 A.2d 855 (1997)
…file evidence has been excluded from trial as impermissible character evidence. Evidence of a pertinent trait of Defendant’s character may be offered by him for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion; 20 however, this proof may be made by testimony as to reputation only. 21 In a Delaware case where a father was accused of physicall…
STATE of Delaware v. Kevin FLORAY, Defendant is worth reading on Delaware character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "Evidence of a pertinent trait of Defendant’s character may be offered by him for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion; 20 however, this proof may be made by testimony as to reputation only." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Rodney A. BRIGHT, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
…the trial court committed plain error by admitting certain character evidence in violation of Delaware Uniform Rules of Evidence (“D.R.E.”) 404, and, relatedly by admitting this evidence notwithstanding an objection based upon D.R.E. 503, the patient-psychotherapist privilege. Bright also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for the Attempted Murder conviction. We reject…
Delaware opinions such as Rodney A. BRIGHT, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "Delaware Uniform Rules of Evidence (“D.R.E.”) 404, and, relatedly by admitting this evidence notwithstanding an objection based upon D.R.E. 503, the patient-psychotherapist privilege. Bright also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for the Attempted Murder conviction." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Nathaniel BANKS, Below v. STATE of Delaware, Below
Nathaniel BANKS, Below v. STATE of Delaware, Below, 2014 Del. LEXIS 228 (2014)
…scretion.’ ”8 In addition, Rule 404 limits the admission of character evidence. In relevant part, Rule 404 provides: (a) Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: [[Image here]] (2) Character of alleged victim. Except as…
Nathaniel BANKS, Below v. STATE of Delaware, Below is worth reading on Delaware character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "In addition, Rule 404 limits the admission of character evidence. In relevant part, Rule 404 provides: (a) Character evidence generally." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Frequently asked questions
What is the primary evidence source in Delaware?
Delaware applies the Delaware Uniform Rules of Evidence. Delaware's Uniform Rules of Evidence track the FRE with minor Delaware variations; Del. R. Evid. 401–902 govern evidentiary issues in the Court of Chancery and Superior Court.
How do Delaware courts decide relevance and unfair prejudice?
Under Del. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and the court may exclude relevant evidence when unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time substantially outweighs its probative value.
Are party admissions hearsay in Delaware?
Party-opponent statements under Del. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) are generally excluded from the hearsay ban (or treated as an exception, depending on local drafting). They may be offered against the party who made or adopted them without showing unavailability.
What foundation is required for business records?
Under Del. R. Evid. 803(6), show a record made at or near the time from someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as a regular practice, through a custodian, qualified witness, or allowed certification — subject to trustworthiness attack.
When can I use a deposition at trial in Delaware?
Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 30 and 32 govern civil depositions and trial use. Chancery Court practice follows similar deposition rules under Court of Chancery rules. Criminal cases use Del. Crim. R. 16; trial use of depositions requires Del. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) or another exception.
Why is authenticity separate from hearsay?
Authenticity asks whether the item is what you claim it is; hearsay asks whether out-of-court assertions inside it may be used for their truth. You can lose on either ground independently. Delaware authenticity practice starts with Del. R. Evid. 901, 902.
Where do dying declarations and medical statements fit?
Dying declarations under Del. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) require belief in impending death and concern the cause or circumstances of that believed death. Medical statements under Del. R. Evid. 803(4) require a genuine diagnostic or treatment purpose and reasonable pertinence to care.