Skip to main content

Baker v. State

Citations

  • 906 A.2d 139
  • 2006 Del. LEXIS 456
  • 2006 WL 2505432

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding that the words \we know\ and \we caught\ were not used as statements of the prosecutor's belief or opinion about the truthfulness of any testimony or evidence
  • finding the issue of prosecutorial misconduct preserved if a trial court intervened sua sponte
  • “The Hunter test only applies in an instance where the application of the Hughes test does not lead to reversal.”
  • “Where defense counsel fails to raise a timely and pertinent objection to alleged prosecutorial misconduct at trial and the trial judge does not intervene sua sponte, we review only for plain error.”
  • “Where defense counsel fails to raise a timely and pertinent objection to alleged prosecutorial misconduct at trial and the trial judge does not intervene sua sponte, we review only for plain error.”
  • “[i]f the Court determine[s] that no misconduct occurred, [the] analysis should end there”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Steele, Holland, Berger, Jacobs, Ridgely

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

81 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

45 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.