The testimony of a retired police officer who planned to tell a Delaware Superior Court jury that a defendant was merely a drug addict, not a dealer, should have been admitted during a criminal trial, the state Supreme Court has ruled. In the reversing opinion, the Supreme Court said the officer’s testimony was necessary to support the defendant’s argument that she did not possess nor deliver the heroin.
“We find that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding [the officer's] testimony, as it was relevant under Delaware Rule of Evidence 401 and permissible under Delaware Rule of Evidence 403,” said Justice Henry duPont Ridgely in Hansley v. State.
