## Facts

- Keith C. Filmore, a Black man, entered a convenience store in Cheswold, Delaware, and asked to use the store telephone; the manager directed him to an outside pay phone.
- Filmore repeatedly entered and exited the store, asked customers for a ride, and used foul language, prompting the manager to call the Delaware State Police about a disorderly customer.
- Filmore asked the manager to locate a bus-station telephone number; when asked which bus station, Filmore threw a phone book and struck the manager in the face.
- Filmore ran from the store after the incident.
- Responding officers observed a red mark on the manager’s face.
- The alleged victims were White women; Filmore was Black.
- Before jury selection, Filmore moved for special voir dire questions, including a question asking whether jurors had any racial prejudice against a Black defendant accused of offenses against White female victims.
- The trial judge refused to ask that race-specific question (or a substantially similar one) over defense request and State objection.
- A jury convicted Filmore of third-degree assault and disorderly conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Article I, § 7 of the Delaware Constitution, a trial court must inquire specifically into potential racial prejudice during voir dire when the defendant is Black and the alleged victims are White.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing a proposed voir dire question probing potential juror bias against a defendant who may exercise the constitutional right not to testify.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that refusing to ask the proposed race-specific voir dire question, or a substantially similar inquiry, denied essential fairness and impaired the right to an impartial jury under Article I, § 7.
- The court concluded that generic bias questions did not sufficiently address the risk of racial prejudice presented by the case’s racial dynamics.
- The court ordered a new trial because the omitted inquiry was prejudicial and not treated as harmless.

## Legal Principles

- Article I, § 7 of the Delaware Constitution guarantees a fair trial by an impartial jury and can require voir dire questioning directed specifically to potential racial prejudice when race creates a meaningful risk of bias.
- Trial judges have broad discretion over voir dire, but that discretion is limited by the constitutional requirement of essential fairness.
- In appropriate circumstances, general questions about fairness or bias are inadequate; the court must “squarely” present the topic of racial prejudice to prospective jurors through a direct inquiry.
- State constitutional protections may exceed minimum federal requirements in regulating jury-selection procedures designed to secure impartiality.

## Conclusion

The Delaware Supreme Court required a new trial because the trial court’s refusal to ask a race-specific voir dire question in a case involving a Black defendant and White alleged victims failed to ensure the essential fairness and impartial jury guaranteed by Article I, § 7 of the Delaware Constitution.


Filmore v. State, 813 A.2d 1112 (Del. 2003)