## Facts

- Carmelo Claudio and Enrique Maymi were prosecuted for crimes arising from events during the early morning of February 14, 1987, after victims Juan Soto and Rafael Lopez had been paid by their employers the prior day.
- The incident culminated in a robbery and shootings that resulted in Soto’s death and injuries to Lopez.
- The State’s theory portrayed the defendants as acting in a joint criminal enterprise, supporting robbery, conspiracy, weapons, murder, and attempted murder charges.
- The defendants were tried jointly before a jury in Delaware Superior Court and convicted of first-degree robbery, four counts of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, two counts of first-degree conspiracy, first-degree murder, and attempted first-degree murder.
- During trial, the State attempted to introduce two kitchen knives seized from under a mattress in Maymi’s bedroom; the court sustained a defense objection and excluded the knives, without giving an immediate curative instruction or declaring a mistrial.
- After deliberations began, a regular juror became ill and was excused; the trial court substituted a sequestered alternate juror and instructed the reconstituted jury to begin deliberations anew.
- The jury returned guilty verdicts; after a penalty hearing, the jury did not unanimously recommend death, and each defendant received life without parole for murder, a second life sentence for attempted murder, and additional consecutive terms for the remaining offenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to give an immediate curative instruction or declare a mistrial after excluding the kitchen knives the State sought to introduce.
2. Whether the accomplice-liability instruction was legally incorrect or confusing such that it misled the jury.
3. Whether substituting a sequestered alternate juror after deliberations began violated the right to trial by jury under the Delaware Constitution, or otherwise required a mistrial.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed all convictions and sentences.
- The trial court’s response to the attempted knife evidence did not warrant reversal because the defendants failed to show incurable prejudice, and the ruling fell within trial-court discretion.
- The accomplice-liability instruction, viewed as a whole, adequately stated Delaware law and did not mislead the jury.
- The alternate-juror substitution was permissible where the alternate was sequestered and the jury was instructed to restart deliberations, and no prejudice undermining the jury-trial guarantee was shown.

## Legal Principles

- A mistrial is an extraordinary remedy; absent a showing that prejudice cannot be cured by less drastic measures, denial of a mistrial (and the timing of curative steps) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Jury instructions are reviewed in their entirety; imperfect phrasing is not reversible error if the overall charge fairly and adequately states the law and guides the jury.
- Accomplice liability permits conviction where the defendant, with the required mental state, intentionally aids or participates in the commission of the offense.
- Substituting an alternate juror after deliberations have begun does not violate the jury-trial right when safeguards protect deliberative integrity, including sequestration of alternates from outside influence and a clear instruction that the reconstituted jury must begin deliberations anew, coupled with no showing of resulting prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the defendants’ convictions, holding that the trial judge acted within discretion in handling the excluded knife evidence, that the accomplice-liability charge was sufficient when read as a whole, and that replacing an ill juror with a properly sequestered alternate after deliberations began was constitutionally permissible when the jury was instructed to restart deliberations and no prejudice was demonstrated.


Claudio v. State, 585 A.2d 1278 (Del. 1991)