Boatswain v. State

In Boatswain v. State, 872 A.2d 959 (table) (Del. Apr. 27, 2005), the Supreme Court of Delaware addressed a contention that the prosecutor in a criminal trial had made an improper comment in closing argument, and that the trial judge erred in overruling the defendant's objection. The prosecutor had commented, in relevant part: The one issue left in this case is: Was it him? The defense would say, well - and you know they will - there's no fingerprints of him. They didn't print the money. They didn't find his prints on the note. In today's day and age, unfortunately, the police and the State isn't put to the same test that they wrote 200 years ago in the Constitution in which they said the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, the test, of course, of criminal defendants now is, can they meet the TV expectation that they hope folks like you want. Can they meet CSI? Objection overruled If they don't have fingerprints, he can't be guilty. On TV, they would have found fingerprints. But this isn't TV, this is real life. The court held the trial court had erred in overruling the defendant's objection, because the prosecutor's comment "denigrated the reasonable doubt standard and incorrectly stated the law." Id. at 6-7. It held that the error was harmless, however. Id. at 9.