# Hughes v. State

> Supreme Court of Delaware · November 18, 1981 · 437 A.2d 559

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541428

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert D. HUGHES, Defendant, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Delaware
- **Decided:** November 18, 1981
- **Citations:** 437 A.2d 559; 1981 Del. LEXIS 396
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McNEILLY
- **Judges:** Herrmann, Duffy, McNeilly, Quillen, Horsey
- **Cited by:** 166 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541428

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that it was improper for prosecutor to label defendant’s “pre-trial out-of-court statements as ‘lies,’ " and that such characterizations must not be made unless "(a) that is a legitimate inference which may be drawn from the evidence, and (b) the prosecutor relates his…
- holding that it was improper for prosecutor to label defendant's "pre-trial out-of-court statements as `lies,' and that such characterizations must not be made unless "(a) that is a legitimate inference which may be drawn from the evidence, and (b) the prosecutor relates his a…
- holding that extent of prejudice is assessed by considering the centrality of the issue affected by the alleged error, the closeness of the case, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the alleged errors
- concluding that the 4 prosecution’s comments on the defendant’s courtroom demeanor were improper, 5 explaining that they are “irrelevant” and “pregnant with potential prejudice”

## Opinion text

McNEILLY, Justice
(concurring):
Although my overview of the blood and lies issues differs from that of the majority, I find the prosecutor’s rebuttal summation to the jury on the blood issue troublesome and not unlikely to have caused prejudice to the defendant. I also agree that the comments by the prosecutor about defendant’s courtroom demeanor were improper, as was the prosecutorial characterization of the two year investigation prior to defendant’s arrest. Therefore, I am impelled to agree that the cumulative effect of the prosecution’s conduct calls for a speedy retrial. I concur in that result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541428. Public record. Not legal advice.