State v. Robinson

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE )
v. )
) ID: 2408012256
DEJUAN I. ROBINSON, )
)
Defendant. )
)

Date Submitted: November 3, 2025
Date Decided: November 4, 2025

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Admission of Defendant’s Statements:
DENIED.
State's Motion in Limine to Admit Defendant’s Statement:
GRANTED in part, DENIED in part.

John W. Downs, Esquire, Barzilai K. Axelrod, Esquire, Alexandra P. Manolakos,
Esquire, and Zoe E. Schloss, Esquire, Deputy Attorneys General, Department of
Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for the State of Delaware.
Michael B. DegliObizzi, Esquire, HOLLOWAY LAW LLC, Wilmington, Delaware,
and Justin C. Capek, Esquire, SCHATZ, STEINBERG & KLAYMAN, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Attorneys for Defendant.

Adams, J.

1
INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On August 21, 2024, a minivan with a family of six inside was involved in a

collision with the Defendant, Dejuan Robinson (“Robinson”). 1 As a result of the

collision, the mother and one of her daughters were pronounced dead at the scene.2

Four additional children were seriously injured.3 The fatal collision was a result of

Robinson allegedly fleeing from police, running a red light, and crashing into the

minivan.4 After the collision, Robinson was transported to Christiana Hospital for

emergency surgery.5

Law enforcement questioned Robinson while he was handcuffed to his

hospital bed awaiting surgery.6 Robinson never received Miranda warnings prior to

this questioning.7 The next day, Robinson was arraigned and committed to the

Department of Corrections (“DOC”).8 Detective Justice arrived at Christiana

Hospital to “watch” Robinson until DOC assumed custody.9 At some point,

Detective Justice began gathering papers in Robinson’s room for DOC staff.10

1
D.I. 31 [“Def. Mot. in Limine”] ¶ 2; D.I. 33 [“State’s Mot. in Limine”] at 1. The facts from this
Order are drawn from both Motions in Limine.
2
State’s Mot. in Limine at 1.
3
Id.
4
Id.
5
Id; Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 2.
6
Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 3; State’s Mot. in Limine at 1-2.
7
Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 3.
8
Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 2; State’s Mot. in Limine at 2.
9
Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 2; State’s Mot. in Limine at 2.
10
State’s Mot. in Limine at 2.
2
Per Detective Justice’s police report, Robinson then directed a comment

towards Detective Justice.11 The comment was unintelligible, but Detective Justice

recognized Robinson’s annoyance by his presence.12 Robinson later asked Detective

Justice why it seemed he had an attitude with Robinson.13 Detective Justice stated

his personal displeasure being with someone who just “killed a mother, daughter,

and critically injured another child.”14 Robinson allegedly responded with “I don’t

give a fuck about dem people” (the “Statement”).15

Robinson alleges he was under the combined effects of post-surgical

anesthesia and pain killers when he made the Statement.16 No body worn camera

recorded the interaction.17 Following Robin’s hospitalization, Robinson was

transported to Howard R. Young Correctional Institute.18 A grand jury later indicted

Robinson with two counts of Second Degree Murder and other offenses.19

Robinson and the State filed competing motions regarding the Statement –

Robinson seeks to exclude the Statement; the State seeks to admit it. 20 Robinson

11
Id.
12
Id.
13
Id; Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 4.
14
Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 4; State’s Mot. in Limine at 2.
15
Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 4; State’s Mot. in Limine at 2.
16
Def. Mot. in Limine ¶¶ 4-5.
17
Id. ¶ 4.
18
State’s Mot. in Limine at 2.
19
Id.
20
See generally Def. Mot. in Limine (presenting Robinson’s argument for why the Statement
should be excluded pursuant to D.R.E. 401 and 403); State’s Mot. in Limine (presenting the State’s
argument for why the Statement should be admitted).
3
first argues the Statement is irrelevant to establish Second Degree mens rea under

D.R.E. 401.21 Robinson then argues even if the Statement was relevant, introducing

it at trial would be unfairly prejudicial to Robinson under D.R.E. 403.22

In contrast, the State seeks to admit the Statement to establish the mens rea

required for Second Degree Murder.23 The State first argues the Statement is

relevant under D.R.E. 401 to establish Second Degree Murder mens rea.24 The State

then argues the Statement is not hearsay and does not implicate Miranda.25 The

State finally argues the Statement’s probative value is not substantially outweighed

by any factors pursuant to D.R.E. 403.26 Trial in this action is set to begin on

November 10, 2025.

ANALYSIS

A. The Statement is relevant.

Evidence is relevant if it “has any tendency to make a fact more or less

probable than it would be without the evidence” and “the fact is of consequence in

determining the action.”27 All “relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise

21
Id. ¶¶ 1, 5, 7.
22
Id. ¶¶ 1, 6, 7.
23
State’s Mot. in Limine at 2-5.
24
Id. at 3.
25
Id. at 3-4.
26
Id. at 4-5. Although the State filed a Response to Defendant’s Motion in Limine on October 31,
2025, Defendant did not file a Response to the State’s Motion to Admit. Defense counsel informed
the Court on November 3, 2025 that Robinson did not intend to file a response to the Motion to
Admit.
27
D.R.E. 401.
4
provided” by statute, other D.R.E. rules, or applicable state court rules.28 Evidence

which is not relevant is not admissible.29

Delaware law “embraces the notion that relevancy consists of both materiality

and probative value.”30 Materiality looks to the relationship between the

propositions for which evidence is offered and the ultimate facts of a case.31

Probative value concerns “the tendency of the evidence to establish the proposition

that it is offered to prove.32 A “fact that is ‘of consequence’ is therefore material and

evidence that advances the probability that it is as a party claims it to be has probative

value.”33

To determine whether the Statement is relevant pursuant to D.R.E. 401, the

court engages in a two-step process. The court will first ascertain whether the

Statement has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable.34 The court will

then determine whether that fact is of consequence in determining the action.35 If

the Statement satisfies both inquiries, it will be deemed relevant evidence.

Regarding the first step, the State and Robinson agree the disputed fact is

whether Robinson, when the fatal collision occurred, possessed the requisite mens

28
D.R.E. 402.
29
Id.
30
Getz v. State, 538 A.2d 726, 731 (Del. 1988) (citation omitted).
31
Id. (citation omitted).
32
Id.
33
Id. (citation omitted).
34
D.R.E. 401.
35
Id.
5
rea for Second Degree Murder.36 In Delaware, a person is guilty of Second Degree

Murder when the person “recklessly causes the death of another person under

circumstances which manifest a cruel, wicked and depraved indifference to human

life[.]”37

The Statement tends to make it more probable Robinson contained the

requisite mens rea for a Second Degree Murder conviction. Robinson must have

acted under circumstances manifesting indifference to human life. An individual is

more likely to have previously acted with indifference to human life if they later

show their capability of similar indifference shortly after. In the Statement,

Robinson directly expresses his lack of concern for a killed mother and child. The

Statement therefore has probative value.

The Court next examines whether Robinson’s mens rea at the time of the

collision is a fact of consequence in determining this action. Robinson’s mens rea

is critical to whether Robinson committed Second Degree Murder. Robinson cannot

be convicted for Second Degree Murder without proof he possessed the requisite

mens rea, meaning his state of mind is material to the case’s outcome. Because

Robinson’s mens rea at the time of the collision relates directly to an ultimate fact

of the case, the Court finds Robinson’s mens rea a fact of consequence.

36
Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 1; State’s Mot. in Limine at 3.
37
11 Del. C. § 635(1) (West 2025). Any further reference to “indifference to human life” or
“indifference” should be understood as “cruel, wicked and depraved indifference to human life.”
6
Robinson argues the post-collision Statement is not relevant to his collision-

night mens rea.38 Robinson cites no caselaw to support the proposition that post-

crime acts or statements cannot be used to prove an earlier state of mind.39

Analogous caselaw supports the opposite position.40 In Delaware, post-accident

conduct has been introduced to reveal pre-accident state of mind, including for

proving mens rea for Second Degree Murder.41

Robinson also argues the circumstances surrounding the Statement make the

Statement less relevant.42 Robinson asserts the Statement was made while he was

under the effects of anesthesia and post-surgery pain killers.43 Robinson also notes

the Statement followed his high bail being set and growing uncertainty about his

post-surgical detention.44 These circumstances may affect the Statement’s reliability,

but none affect the Statement’s relevancy.

38
Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 5.
39
See generally id. (providing no caselaw to support that post-crime conduct or statements cannot
be used to help prove an earlier state of mind).
40
See State v. Ford, 293 A.3d 372, 379, 387-388 (Del. Super. 2023) (discussing post-accident
conduct being used to prove mens rea at the time of a fatal collision).
41
Id. In Ford, the defendant was racing another car at over 90 miles per hour. Id. at 376. The
defendant drove through a turn-only lane at a red light and collided with a truck. Id. The truck
driver was killed. Id. At issue was whether the defendant’s mens rea would elevate manslaughter
to Second Degree Murder. Id. at 378. The defendant admitted post-accident conduct as evidence
against having requisite mens rea for Second Degree Murder. Id. at 379. This conduct included
the defendant crying on the phone to his mother, asking about the truck driver’s condition, crying
when informed of the driver’s death, being cooperative with the police, and more. Id.
42
Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 5.
43
Id.
44
Id.
7
Because the Statement makes a fact of consequence more probable, the

Statement is relevant under D.R.E. 401.

B. The probative value of the Statement is not substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially

outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing

the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting

cumulative evidence.”45 Unfair prejudice within the context of D.R.E. 403 generally

means “an undue tendency to suggest that the jury will render an adverse decision

based on emotional grounds, instead of properly weighing the evidence.”46 Whether

the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair

prejudice is within the discretion of the trial judge, who has the first-hand

opportunity to evaluate relevant factors.47

Pursuant to D.R.E. 403, the Court must balance the Statement’s probative

value against its unfair prejudicial effect to determine whether the Statement should

be excluded. To conduct this balancing test, the court must first determine the

probative value the Statement has in Robinson’s case.48 The court must then

45
D.R.E. 403.
46
Gallaway v. State, 65 A.3d 564, 570 (Del. 2013).
47
Id. at 571 (citing Williams v. State, 494 A.2d 1237, 1241 (Del. 1985)).
48
D.R.E. 403.
8
determine the level of unfair prejudice the Statement brings to Robinson. 49 Only if

the Statement’s probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect

can the court exclude the Statement pursuant to D.R.E. 403.

As to the first step of the balancing test, the Statement is highly probative.

The State must show Robinson had indifference toward human life when the

collision occurred.50 Three facts make the Statement highly probative: (1) Robinson

made the Statement; (2) the Statement was made within forty-eight hours of the

collision; and (3) the Statement concerned the same victims Robinson is accused of

murdering. These facts tend to make it more probable Robinson possessed the

requisite mens rea for Second Degree Murder on the night of the collision. The

Court therefore finds the Statement to be highly probative of Robinson’s mens rea

at the time of the collision, even if the Statement was made post-collision.

The Court next examines the Statement’s unfair prejudicial effect on

Robinson. A difference exists between “prejudicial” evidence and evidence

“unfairly prejudicial” to a defendant.51 All adverse evidence is prejudicial.52 Unfair

prejudice only arises when an undue tendency suggests a jury’s decision will be

49
Id.
50
11 Del. C. § 635(1) (West 2025).
51
“Not all prejudice is unfair prejudice, and Rule 403 bars only the latter.” United States v. Long,
92 F.4th 481, 488 (3rd. Cir. 2024) (citing United States v. Heatherly, 985 F.3d 254, 266 (3rd. Cir.
2021)).
52
“Any evidence that is properly admissible during the State’s case-in-chief is prejudicial to the
defendant in the sense that it enhances the likelihood of a conviction.” Stevenson v. State, 709
A.2d 619, 632 (Del. 1998).
9
based on emotional grounds rather than a weighing of the evidence.53 Prejudicial

evidence, however, can still elicit emotions from a jury without becoming unfairly

prejudicial to a defendant.54

The Statement is prejudicial to Robinson. The Statement appears to depict

Robinson as unremorseful and unsympathetic. Because lack of remorse or sympathy

display indifference to human life, the Statement makes it more likely Robinson

possessed the same mens rea 48 hours earlier. The Statement also leads the jury to

view Robinson more negatively. That fact does not automatically make the

Statement unfairly prejudicial. The prejudice only becomes unfair if the jury’s

decision is based on emotion alone and not a weighing of the evidence.

The Court disagrees with Robinson that the Statement will inflame and

mislead the jury, leading to Robinson being unfairly prejudiced.55 Robinson’s

concern is the Statement’s introduction will lead the jury to render a decision based

on a wish to punish him for lack of post-collision remorse.56

In applying the D.R.E. 403 balancing test, the Court finds the Statement’s

highly probative value is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial

53
Gallaway, 65 A.3d at 570.
54
Courts are “not required to scrub [a] trial clean of all evidence that may have an emotional
impact.” Long, 92 F.4th at 488 (citing United States v. Cunningham, 694 F.3d 372, 391 (3rd. Cir.
2012)).
55
Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 6.
56
Id. If the Court was not excluding the Statement pursuant to Miranda, providing the jury a
limiting instruction would cure this concern.
10
effect it has on Robinson. The Court also finds the Statement’s high probative value

is not substantially outweighed by any other factors listed under D.R.E. 403,

especially if a limiting instruction would be used to narrow the jury’s use of the

Statement.

C. Miranda bars the admission of the Statement.

The State moved to Admit the Statement, arguing Miranda is inapplicable

because the Statement was not made “in response to a custodial interrogation or the

functional equivalent thereof.”57 Defendant did not move for the Statement’s

exclusion pursuant to Miranda, but did weave facts and points more poignant for a

Miranda violation throughout its Motion.58 Because the State put Miranda at issue,

the Court will consider whether the Statement should be excluded pursuant to

Miranda.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that no

person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. 59

Miranda extended this right to custodial interrogation of a person suspected or

57
State’s Mot. in Limine at 3
58
For example, Robinson asserts he was “essentially re-interviewed post-surgery” after not
receiving Miranda warnings before being questioned pre-surgery. Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 3.
Robinson also asserts the Statement was “elicited by unprovoked disrespect and antagonization”
by Detective Justice. Id. ¶ 7.
59
U.S. CONST. amend V. This protection applies to state action through the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 6 (1964).
11
accused of a crime.60 The landmark case “established that law enforcement officials

may not constitutionally subject citizens to custodial interrogation without [citizens

being] first advised of certain rights protective of their Fifth Amendment privilege

against self-incrimination.”61

The Supreme Court of the United States defined “custodial interrogation” as

“questioning by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody

or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”62 A person

is “in custody” under Miranda if, when applying an objective reasonable person

standard to the totality of the circumstances, the Defendant would not feel free to

leave or terminate questioning.63 “Interrogation” under Miranda means express

questioning or its functional equivalent.64

60
Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185, 1192 (Del. 1992) (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467
(1966)).
61
Id. (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467).
62
Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444.
63
State v. Alexander, 1994 WL 150862, at *4 (Del. Super. Feb. 17, 1994) (citing Marine, 607 A.2d
at 1193); Id. (citing U.S. v. Phillips, 812 F.2d 1355, 1360 (11th Cir. 1987)). The key inquiry courts
must make is whether a person’s deprivation of freedom rises to the same degree associated with
a formal arrest. Coelle v. State, 332 A.3d 498, 505 (Del. 2024) (quoting Torres v. State, 608 A.2d
731, 1992 WL 53406, at *2 (Del. Feb 7, 1992)). Put simply, courts must determine whether the
relative environment surrounding a person’s restraint on freedom “presents the same inherently
coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning present in Miranda.” Id. (quoting
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499, 509 (2012)).
64
Tolson v. State, 900 A.2d 639, 643-44 (Del. 2006). The functional equivalent of express
questioning under Miranda has been defined as “any words or actions . . . on the part of the police
that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the
suspect.” Alexander, 1994 WL 150862, at *4.
12
To determine whether a person is in “custody” under Miranda, courts have

considered the following factors: the interrogation’s duration and location; whether

the suspect volunteered to be interviewed; whether officers used physical restraints;

and if weapons were present.65 To determine whether a person was “interrogated”

under Miranda, an objective inquiry must be conducted.66 Courts ask whether a

reasonable person in the suspect’s position or a reasonable objective observer would

believe an officer’s statements or actions were likely to elicit an incriminating

response.67

The Miranda Court “recognized [a suspect’s interrogation] in a custodial

setting frequently contains “inherent compelling pressures which work to undermine

the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not

otherwise do so freely.”68 Miranda warnings were designed “to assure that the

individual’s right to choose between silence and speech remains unfettered

throughout the interrogation process.”69 If a person is not given Miranda warnings

before custodial interrogation, “[that person’s] answers cannot be introduced into

evidence at a subsequent trial to establish [his] guilt.”70

65
U.S. v. Wilson, 100 F.Supp.3d 268, 278 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (citations omitted).
66
U.S. v. Orr, 707 F.Supp.2d 894, 899 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citations omitted); see DeJesus v. State,
655 A.2d 1180, 1190 (Del. 1995), superseded by statute on other grounds, (emphasizing the
objective nature of Miranda analysis).
67
Orr, 707 F.Supp.2d at 899 (citations omitted).
68
DeJesus, 655 A.2d at 1189 (citing Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 430 (1984)).
69
Id. (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 469).
70
Id. (citing Berkemer v. McCarthy, 468 U.S. 420, 429 (1984)).
13
The Court first examines whether Robinson was in “custody” under Miranda

when he made the Statement. When the Statement was made, Robinson had already

been arraigned for murder charges.71 During his hospital stay, Robinson was

physically restrained to his bed by handcuffs.72 Detective Justice, whether at the

hospital to “watch” or “supervise” Robinson, was present until DOC arrived because

“[Robinson] was [already] “committed” to Howard R. Young Correctional

Institute.”73

Under the totality of the circumstances, Robinson was in custody for Miranda

purposes. Even if Robinson’s physical condition allowed him to leave his hospital

bed, handcuffs would prevent him from doing so. If Robinson was freed from his

handcuffs, none of the facts suggest Detective Justice would allow Robinson to leave

the hospital on his own accord. There is no need to “watch” or “supervise” someone

who possesses autonomy to come or go as they please. The Court therefore holds

that Robinson’s physical restraint, commitment to DOC, and Detective Justice’s

monitoring collectively show Robinson was in custody under Miranda.74

71
Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 2; State’s Mot. in Limine at 2. The arraignment shows Robinson rose to
the level of a primary “suspect” in the Delaware State Police’s investigation. He was not treated
as simply another victim of the collision.
72
Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 3.
73
Id. ¶ 2; State’s Mot. in Limine at 2.
74
The Court also notes that the State, in its Motion in Limine, implicitly suggests Robinson was in
custody under Miranda. State’s Mot. in Limine at 2. Robinson was never given his Miranda
warnings before initially being questioned by Delaware State Police pre-surgery. Id; Def. Mot. in
Limine ¶ 3. The State has agreed not to use any information obtained from this specific
questioning, presumably because it recognizes that Robinson, at that time, was likely interrogated
14
The Court next examines whether Robinson was “interrogated” under

Miranda. Robinson voluntarily engaged Detective Justice twice while Detective

Justice was in Robinson’s room.75 While Detective Justice never responded to

Robinson’s first attempt, Detective Justice responded to the second.76 Per Detective

Justice’s police report, Detective Justice told Robinson “he was not excited to be in

the same room as someone who just killed a mother, daughter, and critically injured

another child.”77 Only after this statement does Robinson respond, “I don’t give a

fuck about dem people.”78

The Court struggles to see how, as the State suggests, the Statement was

“unprompted.”79 Robinson inquired about Detective Justice’s personal feelings

toward Robinson, and Detective Justice responded by invoking the very crime

Robinson is accused of committing. The response was detailed, direct, and

accusatory. A reasonable objective person would believe Detective Justice’s

comment was likely to elicit incriminating statements from Robinson, especially

in custody without receiving Miranda warnings. State’s Mot. in Limine at 2; Def. Mot. in Limine
¶ 3. No facts suggest the circumstances changed such that Robinson’s custodial status differed
between the time he was initially questioned and when the interaction with Detective Justice
occurred. This conclusion is supported by the State’s response to Robinson’s Motion in Limine,
which appears to contest only whether Detective Justice’s interaction with Robinson was
considered “interrogation” under Miranda. D.I. # 34 ¶¶ 13-15.
75
State’s Mot. in Limine at 2.
76
Id.
77
Id.
78
Id.
79
State’s Reply Br. ¶ 14. While Robinson did initiate the interaction with Detective Justice, that
does not affect whether Detective Justice’s subsequent comment then prompted Robinson to make
the Statement.
15
because the comment introduced Robinson’s allegedly criminal actions into the

conversation. The Court therefore finds Robinson was interrogated under Miranda.

The State, in arguing Robinson was not under custodial interrogation, relies

on the analogous facts present between Robinson’s case and Smallwood v. State.80

In Smallwood, the defendant was hospitalized after being shot.81 A police officer,

who was previously acquainted with defendant’s brother, was assigned to guard

defendant at the hospital.82 While outside the defendant’s room, the officer saw

defendant motion for him to enter.83 The defendant then made an incriminating

statement to the officer.84 The Supreme Court of Delaware held that no Miranda

violation occurred because defendant initiated the conversation and was not

interrogated.85

While the circumstances in Smallwood share similarities with Robinson’s

case,86 the State ignores key differentiating details. Both the officer in Smallwood

and Detective Justice appease the request of the defendant they are tasked with

80
2002 WL 31883015, at *1 (Del. Dec. 26, 2002); State’s Mot. in Limine at 3-4; State’s Reply Br.
¶ 14.
81
Smallwood, 2002 WL 31883015, at *1 (Del. Dec. 26, 2002).
82
Id.
83
Id.
84
Id.
85
Id.
86
There are several similarities between the Smallwood defendant and Robinson. First, both were
in the hospital recovering from injuries resulting from an alleged crime. Id; Def. Mot. in Limine ¶
2. Second, both were being “watched” or “guarded” at the hospital by a law enforcement officer.
Smallwood, 2002 WL 31883015, at *1; Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 2. Third, both initiated contact with
their respective law enforcement officer and made incriminating statements. Smallwood, 2002 WL
31883015, at *1; Def. Mot. in Limine ¶ 4.
16
guarding. The Smallwood officer enters the defendant’s room while Detective

Justice offers a reason for why he might have an attitude with Robinson. But these

appeasements are not equivalent actions apt for comparison under Miranda analysis.

In Smallwood, the Supreme Court held that the officer did not interrogate

Defendant because all he did was enter the defendant’s room and listen to him. The

officer, at the time of entering the defendant’s room, had no reason to believe his

appeasement would likely elicit an incriminating statement from the defendant.

Turning back to Robinson’s case, Detective Justice similarly had no reason to believe

his entering Robinson’s room would illicit an incriminating statement. But that is

not the end of the story.

Detective Justice appeased Robinson’s request either knowing or having

reason to know that his comment to Robinson was reasonably likely to illicit an

incriminating statement. Critical to the Court’s analysis is not Detective Justice’s

choice to respond to Robinson, but rather how he responded. Directing a detailed

and accusatory statement concerning the events leading to a defendant’s arraignment

is at the very least distinct from an officer simply entering a defendant’s hospital

room. Because the actions of the Smallwood officer and Detective Justice are

drastically different from each other, the reasoning in Smallwood does not apply.

The Court finds Robinson was in custodial interrogation when he made the

Statement to Detective Justice. Because neither Detective Justice nor any other

17
officer provided Robinson with his Miranda warnings before the Statement was

made, the Statement is therefore excluded from admission at trail. The State’s

Motion in Limine with respect to Miranda is therefore DENIED.

CONCLUSION

The Court finds the Statement relevant under D.R.E. 401 and not excludable

under D.R.E. 403. Robinson’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Admission of

Defendant’s Statement is DENIED and the State’s Motion to Admit the Statement

pursuant to D.R.E. 401 and 403 is GRANTED. The Court, however, finds that the

Statement should be excluded from admission pursuant to Miranda. The State’s

Motion in Limine to Admit Defendant’s Statement is DENIED with respect to

Miranda.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18