State of Delaware v. Flonnory.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE V. Freddy L. Flonnory, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ID: 9707012190 OPINION AND ORDER Now this 30th day of December 2003, it appears to the Court: 1) Defendant in this First Degree Murder case has moved to exclude the introduction into evidence of a statement purportedly made by a witness Joy Watson to FBI Agent Stranahan. 2) The statement made was not recorded in its entirety but a summary of the statement was included in a report filed by the Agent in this case. 3) The summary of the statement did not purport to be a verbatim record of what the witness had told Agent Stranahan. 4) The defendant argues that the statement should not be admissible through 11 Del. C. § 3507 because it was not a verbatim record of what the witness said but rather was the Agent s interpretation of her statement. See Huggins v. State, 337 A 2d 28 (Del. 1975). 5) It is clear that a witness actual statement, recorded, video taped or written would be preferable to another witness recollection of that statement. 6) In this case the Agent did not record the statement verbatim even though the statement was purportedly taken to confirm the facts in a statement made by Akhee Flonnory that was taped verbatim. 7) The Court can not conclude at this point that the Agent s rendition or recollection of Ms. Watson s statement, assuming a proper foundation is laid, will not comply with 11 Del. C. § 3507 as that section is not restricted to recorded or written statements. 8) The defendant, Ms. Watson, indicated that she voluntarily came in to the police station and gave this statement to help her boyfriend. 9) The declarant disputes that the recollection of Agent Stranahan is accurate and denies saying many of the comments attributed to her. 10) The purpose of this statute is in part to remedy the situation of a turncoat witness; and thus her denial of the details of the statement becomes an issue of credibility for the jury. Wherefore, defendant s Motion in Limine is Denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. _____________________________ The Honorable Richard S. Gebelein Orig: Prothonotary cc: All counsel of Record
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
