Williams v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. United States ex rel. Wilson v. Anderson

    399 F. Supp. 41 (D. Del. 1975)

    However, under Delaware law, issues may not be raised on appeal in the Delaware Supreme Court unless they were fairly presented to the court below. Wilmington Memorial Co. v. Silverbrook, 297 A.2d 378, 380 (Del.Supr.1972); Williams v. State, 205 A.2d 9, 10-11 (Del.Supr.1963); Rule 5(7) Delaware Supreme Court. Consequently, the Delaware Supreme Court never considered the Brady issue which had not been presented to the Superior Court.

  2. Williams v. Anderson

    245 F. Supp. 185 (D. Del. 1965)   Cited 1 times

    United States v. Sorcey, 7 Cir., 151 F.2d 899, c.d. 327 U.S. 794, 66 S.Ct 821, 90 L.Ed. 1021. Furthermore, we think our decision in Williams v. State, Del., 205 A.2d 9, in which a very similar question came up controls."

  3. Smith v. State

    317 A.2d 20 (Del. 1974)   Cited 42 times
    In Smith, supra, this Court held that, where appropriate, it should be made clear to the jury that it is not within the scope of its duty to consider and attempt to evaluate the possibility of post-conviction remedies, i.e., pardon, parole or probation. 317 A.2d at 25-26; accord, Hand v. State, Del.Supr., 354 A.2d 140 (1976) (possible disposition of defendant as result of insanity finding not to be considered by jury).

    The way in which the Trial Judge conducted the voir dire in this case was entirely within his discretion and, absent a showing of abuse, he will not be reversed. We find no abuse in the Court's decision to make the inquiry collectively and not individually. Compare Williams v. State, Del.Supr., 205 A.2d 9 (1963); Smith v. United States, 8 Cir., 236 F.2d 260 (1956), cert. den. 352 U.S. 909, 77 S.Ct. 148, 1 L.Ed.2d 118 (1956); People v. Marino, 95 Ill. App.2d 369, 238 N.E.2d 245 (1968), aff'd 44 Ill.2d 562, 256 N.E.2d 770 (1970); State v. Schlagel, Mo.Supr., 490 S.W.2d 81 (1973). III

  4. Williams v. State

    206 A.2d 501 (Del. 1964)   Cited 5 times

    The presumption is that members of the jury are true to their oaths. United States v. Sorcey, 7 Cir., 151 F.2d 899, c.d. 327 U.S. 794, 66 S. Ct. 821, 90 L. Ed. 1021. Furthermore, we think our decision in Williams v. State, Del., 205 A.2d 9, in which a very similar question came up controls. Next, Williams argues that he was denied due process of law because the trial judge submitted to the jury the issue of the voluntariness of his admissions contrary to the ruling of Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S. Ct. 1774, 12 L. Ed. 2d 908. Jackson v. Denno held that a defendant is guaranteed a right, at some stage of the proceeding, to have a fair hearing and a reliable determination of the issue of voluntariness, uninfluenced by the truth or falsity of the confession, which was not satisfied by the New York rule that the trial judge must make a preliminary determination of this issue and shall exclude a confession from evidence only if under no circumstances could it be deemed voluntary.