Kendall v. State
Supreme Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
VEASEY, Chief Justice:
In affirming the judgment entered upon a conviction in a criminal case, we clarify the admissibility under D.R.E. 404(b) of evidence of a defendant’s prior misconduct as direct proof of certain crimes, as well as evidence of a defendant’s knowledge, intent, and plan. That issue arises out of the defendant’s direct appeal from a conviction of Theft by False Pretense and Racketeering, among other charges. We hold: (a) that where a defendant intentionally created a false impression as to his past conduct in order to affect adversely his victims’ judgment of their dealings…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- United States v. Richard O. BertoliCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- United States v. Leonard A. PelulloCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Getz v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1988
- Diaz v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1986
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- HMG/Courtland Properties, Inc. v. GrayCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1999
- Taylor v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2001
- Andreavich v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2018
- Barnett v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2006
- Bryan v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2026
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.