holding that expert testimony to establish that an individual met the statutory definition of an infirm adult was unnecessary where there was testimony from lay witnesses that the victim was diabetic, had balance problems, was completely incontinent
Summary of this case from Wilgus v. Bayhealth Med. Ctr., Inc.Nos. 296, 2006; 303, 2006.
August 10, 2007.
Appeal from the Superior (Sussex) Cr 0505019622, 0505019765.
Decisions Without Published Opinions Affirmed.
holding that expert testimony to establish that an individual met the statutory definition of an infirm adult was unnecessary where there was testimony from lay witnesses that the victim was diabetic, had balance problems, was completely incontinent
Summary of this case from Wilgus v. Bayhealth Med. Ctr., Inc.Full title:Bennett v. State
Court:Supreme Court of Delaware
Date published: Aug 10, 2007
In addition, her lay testimony regarding her restrictions throughout the six month period, and Bayhealth's…
Erhart v. DirecTV, Inc.6 Del. C. §2580; 6 Del. C. §4602(10). Bennett v. State, 933 A.2d 1249, 2007 WL 2286055 (Del. 2007) (TABLE)…