Opinion
No. 139, 1998.
Decided: December 18, 1998.
Superior CrA IN96-08-1663 and 1664.
Affirmed.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
BOOKER T. MARTIN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 139, 1998. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: December 1, 1998. Decided: December 18, 1998.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 18th day of December, 1998 upon consideration of the briefs of the parties it appears to the Court as follows:
(1) The appellant, Booker T. Martin ("Martin"), appeals from his conviction in the Superior Court of Robbery First Degree and related weapons charges. He raises a single claim of error: that the prosecutor, in closing argument, inferentially commented on Martin's election not to testify at trial. Martin concedes that his counsel made no contemporaneous objection to the alleged improper comment but urges reversal on the basis of plain error.
(2) While the comment in question, taken out of context, may arguably implicate Martin's constitutional right of self-incrimination, the lack of a contemporaneous objection precludes review except under a plain error standard. Supr. Ct. R. 8; McDade v. State, Del. Supr., 693 A.2d 1062, 1064 (1997). "Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process." Wainwright v. State, Del. Supr., 504 A.2d 1096, 1100, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 869 (1986).
(3) We conclude that the error complained of in this case does not rise to the level of plain error. Accordingly, the judgment of the Superior Court must be affirmed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT: