Carter v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AARON K. CARTER, Defendant, Below Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 182, 2002 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 0105020018 Submitted: September 24, 2002 Decided: October 16, 2002 Before VEASY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices ORDER This 16th day of October, 2002, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) In March of 2002, a Superior Court jury convicted Appellant Arron K. Carter of Burglary in the First Degree, twelve counts of Possession of a Firearm during the Commission of a Felony, three counts of First Degree Robbery, five counts of Second Degree Kidnapping, three counts of Aggravated Menacing, one count of Second Degree Conspiracy, and one count of Wearing a Disguise during the Commission of a Felony. (2) Carter claims that: a) the prosecutor s repeated suggestive comments on the defendant s post arrest silence violated the defendant s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights; and, b) in the absence of a defense objection, the trial judge erred by failing to intervene, sua sponte, to cure the effect of that improper argument. We find no prosecutorial misconduct and, therefore, need not reach the second argument. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. (3) The State s comment in closing rebuttal did not amount to improper comment on the defendant s post arrest silence and did not rise to the level of misconduct described by this Court in Williams v. State.1 In Williams, we reversed a conviction below because of prejudicial prosecutorial comment in closing argument that constituted plain error. We held that the closing remarks improperly suggested to the Jury that in order to acquit the accused, they must believe that the State s witnesses lied. The remarks consequently improperly branded the defendant as a liar. (4) This case is distinguishable. Here, the State did not use improper language, maintained an emphasis on the jury s role as assessors of credibility, and permissibly responded to the defense s commentary on the State s failure to call certain witnesses.2 Though the Defendant s credibility was at issue at trial, it cannot be said that it was a central issue in a close case. 3 While the Defendant s 1 Williams v. State, Del. Supr., No. 12, 2002, per curium (July 8, 2002) See Michael v. State, 529 A.2d 752, 762 (Del. 1987) (explaining and applying the invited response doctrine). 3 Trump v. State, Del. Supr., 753 A.2d 963, 964-965 (2000). 2 2 defense that the State had the wrong man is similar to that of Williams, there is ample evidence to support the jury verdict4 and it is likely that the jury s assessment of Defendant s credibility was not a critical factor in the sense that their decision turned on whether they believed the defendant or the witnesses for the State. Accordingly, there was no plain error in this case sufficient to warrant reversal. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Superior Court be, and hereby is, AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT _/s/ Myron T. Steele_________________ Justice 4 When arrested, Defendant was in possession of: (1) the Dudleks check written to cash in the amount of $1000, (2) $851 in cash consistent with the amounts withdrawn and plan to shortchange his companion on the proceeds of the robbery; and, (3) .45 caliber ammunition. Furthermore, Defendant s appearance was consistent with the Dudleks description. 3
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.
