Secrest v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• third-party waiver \makes sense in situations where the patient is reasonably lucid and able to control access to the setting\
• “A Rule 16 violation does not require reversal if ‘significant evidence, independent of [the undisclosed testimony], was before the jury . . . .’” (alteration in original) (quoting Skinner v. State, 575 A.2d 1108, 1126 (Del. 1990))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).