- Plaintiff
- Banther, Bruce
- Represented By:
- Gill, Edward (Gill, Edward, Law Offices of)
- Defense
- State of Delaware
- Represented By:
- Welch, Stephen (Delaware Department of Justice)
Case Description: Bruce Banther was convicted in 2008 for Murder in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony. In Banthers first jury trial, completed in October 1998, Banther was acquitted of Conspiracy in the First Degree, but convicted of Murder in the First Degree, Forgery in the Second Degree, and Felony Theft. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed Banthers convictions and remanded the matter for a new trial. In the Second trail Banther was convicted of Murder in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony. On appeal the Supreme Court reversed this conviction and remanded the matter for a third trial.
Proceedings Description: In this appeal, Banther appeals his third trial. Banther argues that the trial judges failure to properly focus the jury by giving a preliminary limiting instruction was a violation of the Supreme Courts mandate and constitutes reversible error. Second, Banther contends that there was no evidence in the record to support the States theory that Banther was Schmitzs accomplice. Third, Banther submits the trial judge erred by permitting Schmitz to testify, because that testimony was precluded by the doctrine of judicial estoppels. Fourth, Banther contends that the State violated his due process rights under both the Delaware and United States constitutions by asserting a new theory of criminal responsibility. Fifth, Banther claims that the trial judge erred by permitting the State to present alternative theories of Banthers criminal liability as either a principal or an accomplice. Sixth, Banther contends the trial judge erroneously admitted four hearsay statements that violated his federal Constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. Seventh, Banther argues that the state made improper closing arguments to the jury.
Outcome: The Supreme Court concludes that none of the claims are meritorious and affirms the Superior Courts judgment.
http://courts.delaware.gov/OPINIONS/download.ASPx?ID=125190
Recording Disclaimer: This proceeding was recorded in full.