Legal Opinion

Liket v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided November 4, 1998No. 286, 1997PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Per curiam

In this appeal, we affirm the trial court’s admission of the testimony of a surprise prosecution witness to the effect that the defendant had confessed to him. The State failed to inform the defense of the existence or testimony of this witness prior to calling him to testify on the last day of the State’s case-in-chief. We are asked to decide whether the State has a duty to disclose in advance the identity or testimony of a prosecution witness when such information is not exculpatory. We decide that it does not have such a duty. 1

Facts

On January 20, 1996, Chris Moore and his son Cecil…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Weatherford v. BurseySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Gray v. NetherlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. Lilly v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1994
  5. Gattis v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1997

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Campbell v. BurrisCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008
  2. Phillips v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2017
  3. Burrell v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2000
  4. Goode v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2016
  5. Fortt v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2001

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API