Legal Opinion

Kendall v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided April 5, 1999No. 108, 1997PublishedCited by 13 opinions

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

  1. H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. United States v. Richard O. BertoliCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
  3. United States v. Leonard A. PelulloCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
  4. Getz v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1988
  5. Diaz v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1986

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. HMG/Courtland Properties, Inc. v. GrayCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1999
  2. Taylor v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2001
  3. Andreavich v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2018
  4. Barnett v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2006
  5. Bryan v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2026

8 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