IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE THOMAS J. CAPANO, § § Defendant Below, § Nos. 110 and 149, 1999 Appellant, § § Court Below: Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware in and § for New Castle County STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Cr. A. No. IN97-11-0720 Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. § Submitted: June 13, 2001 Decided: August 10, 2001 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, HOLLAND, STEELE, Justices, and CHANDLER, Chancellor,* constituting the Court en Banc. Upon appeal from the Superior Court. AFFIRMED. * Sitting by designation pursuant to Article IV, Section 12 of the Delaware Constitution and Supreme Court Rules 2 and 4(a). Joseph M. Bernstein, Esquire (argued), Wilmington, Delaware; Charles M. Oberly, III, Esquire, of Oberly & Jennings, Wilmington, Delaware; L. Vincent Ramunno, Esquire, of Ramunno & Ramunno, Wilmington, Delaware; Of Counsel: David A. Ruhnke, Esquire (argued), of Ruhnke & Barrett, Montclair, New Jersey; Nathan Z. Dershowitz, Esquire, Victoria B. Eiger, Esquire, and Amy Adelson, Esquire, of Dershowitz, Eiger & Adelson, New York, New York; Alan M. Dershowitz, Esquire, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Paul Shechtman, Esquire (argued), of Stillman & Friedman, P.C., New York, New York, for Appellant. Ferris W. Wharton, Esquire (argued), Loren C. Meyers, Esquire, Timothy J. Donovan, Jr., Esquire, Thomas E. Brown, Esquire, and Elizabeth R. McFarlan, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, for the State. VEASEY, Chief Justice: TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 A. Summary of Conclusions Reached on Appeal ................................................ 3 1. The Lie Detector Test ...................................................................... 4 2. Hearsay Testimony by Fahey’s Psychotherapists and Friends....................... 5 3. Lesser Included Offenses................................................................... 7 4. Limits on Allocution ........................................................................ 8 5. Constitutionality of Delaware’s Death Penalty Statute............................... 8 B. Summary of Background Facts Leading to Trial............................................. 9 C. Summary of Facts: The State’s Case .........................................................11 D. Summary of Facts: The Defense Case .......................................................17 II. Preliminary Statement on the Admissibility or Exclusion of Evidence..................20 III. References to Gerry Capano’s Lie Detector Test ...........................................21 A. Gerry’s Reference to the Lie Detector Test ..................................................22 B. Lyons’ Testimony about the Threat of a Polygraph Test ..................................27 1. Admissibility of Lyons’ Reference to the Threat of a Lie Detector Test .........33 2. Improper Vouching by Lyons ............................................................38 C. Harmless Error Analysis of Lyons’ Testimony..............................................42 1. Effect of Lyons’ Testimony on the Credibility of Gerry’s Testimony ............44 2. Untainted Evidence of Planning .........................................................52 3. The Trial Judge’s Limiting Instructions ................................................59 IV. Hearsay Testimony by Fahey’s Psychotherapists and Friends............................60 A. Admissibility of Hearsay Testimony by Fahey’s Psychotherapists and Friends under the State of Mind Exception ....................................................................64 1. Whether Fahey’s Statements Fall within the State of Mind Exception............65 2. Whether Statements Describing Fahey’s Fear of Capano May be Presented in the State’s Case-in-Chief ..................................................................73 3. Confrontation Clause Analysis of Hearsay Statements Admitted under the State of Mind Exception..........................................................................78 B. Admission Under the State of Mind Exception of Fahey’s Statements of Facts Remembered or Believed is Harmless Error ................................................. 81 C. Admissibility of Fahey’s Statements to Her Psychotherapists Under D.R.E. 803(4) .94 1. Application of the Medical Diagnosis Exception .....................................95 2. Confrontation Clause Analysis of Statements Admitted Under the Medical Diagnosis Exception ..................................................................... 101 V. Lesser Included Offenses...................................................................... 104 A. Contentions of the Parties ..................................................................... 106 B. No Preclusion ................................................................................... 107 C. The Evidence Here Does Not Support a Lesser Included Offense Charge ........... 111 D. Accident Testimony Not a Basis for Lesser Includeds ................................... 116 E. No Due Process Violation..................................................................... 117 VI. Admission of Evidence of Capano’s Character and Prior Misconduct ................ 120 A. MacIntyre’s Gun Purchase .................................................................... 121 B. Shopa’s Conversation with Capano.......................................................... 124 C. Cross-Examination of Capano................................................................ 126 D. Due Process...................................................................................... 131 VII. Denial of Motion for Recusal................................................................. 132 A. Capano’s Contentions .......................................................................... 133 B. Denial of Recusal Not an Abuse of Discretion ............................................ 135 VIII. Investigation of Allegations of Juror Misconduct ......................................... 139 A. Juror No. 5 ...................................................................................... 140 B. Juror No. 4 ...................................................................................... 143 IX. Questions Concerning Post-Arrest Silence—No Plain Error............................ 148 X. No Brady Violation............................................................................. 154 XI. Propriety of Questions During Cross-Examination of Capano ......................... 156 XII. Personal Opinions of Witnesses as to Capano’s Guilt.................................... 161 XIII. Capano’s Absence from Office Conferences............................................... 162 XIV. Admission of Adultery Evidence During Impeachment.................................. 164 XV. Plain Error—Limits on Allocution........................................................... 167 A. Introduction ...................................................................................... 167 B. Capano’s Exercise of His Right to Allocution ............................................. 170 C. The Sentencing Decision ...................................................................... 175 D. Capano’s Contentions .......................................................................... 177 E. The Shelton Jurisprudence .................................................................... 180 F. Plain Error Review in This Case............................................................. 185 G. The Issue Whether Capano Was Unduly Prejudiced ..................................... 189 XVI. Constitutionality of Delaware’s Death Penalty Statute ................................... 198 A. Right to a Jury Trial as Applied to the Penalty Hearing under the Delaware Death Penalty Statute................................................................................... 199 B. Application to the Death Penalty Statute of the United States Supreme Court’s Decision in Apprendi........................................................................... 202 XVII. Aggravating Circumstance Instruction ...................................................... 208 XVIII. Statutorily Mandated Review of Capano’s Death Sentence ............................. 211 - ii - A. Statutory Aggravating Circumstance ........................................................ 212 B. Death Penalty Not Arbitrary or Capricious ................................................ 213 C. Death Penalty Proportionality Review ...................................................... 216 XIX. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 220 - iii - I. Introduction Thomas J. Capano was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to death for the murder of Anne Marie Fahey. As with all capital cases in Delaware, the proceedings here were divided into a guilt phase, a penalty hearing and a sentencing determination by the trial judge, who gave substantial weight to the jury’s recommendation following the penalty hearing. Capano was arrested for Fahey’s murder in November 1997 and indicted in December 1997. His trial began in Superior Court in October 1998. The guilt phase of this proceeding before the jury was quite long, spanning approximately thirty-two trial days spread over ten weeks from October 6, 1998 to January 17, 1999. After the jury unanimously found Capano guilty of first degree murder, the penalty hearing commenced. It lasted for five days and resulted