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.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]