finding prosecutor's statements in rebuttal, explaining that it was the testifying detective's story that was "consistent" and "laden with certainty," not prejudicial because they were offered "in response to defense counsel's own credibility-based comments."
Summary of this case from Adkins v. StateNo. 262, 2004.
January 18, 2005.
Appeal from the Superior (Kent) Cr 0305004020.
Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
finding prosecutor's statements in rebuttal, explaining that it was the testifying detective's story that was "consistent" and "laden with certainty," not prejudicial because they were offered "in response to defense counsel's own credibility-based comments."
Summary of this case from Adkins v. StateFull title:HOLLAND v. STATE
Court:Supreme Court of Delaware
Date published: Jan 18, 2005
" 11. Czech v. State, 945 A.2d at 1099 (holding that prosecutor's argument that rape is not a subject about…