Clark v. State

── Clark v. State ── Court: Supreme Court of Delaware Date: June 08, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PAULRON CLARK, § § No. 98, 2025 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § ID No: 2311012390 A/B (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. § § Submitted: March 25, 2026 Decided: June 8, 2026 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices, constituting the Court en banc. Upon appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. AFFIRMED. Anthony J. Capone, Esquire, (argued); Lauren N. Brown, Esquire, OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellant Paulron Clark. Julie M. Donoghue, Esquire; Kenneth Nachbar, Esquire (argued), DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellee State of Delaware. TRAYNOR, Justice: Paulron Clark was convicted in the Superior Court of several sexual offenses committed against a child. He now seeks reversal of those convictions on myriad grounds. In a nutshell, Clark contends that his convictions were the product of prosecutorial misconduct and the trial court’s flawed evidentiary rulings. Because Clark’s arguments lack merit, we affirm his convictions. I A Clark and Leandra Moore met in 2009 and “start[ed] dating as boyfriend and girlfriend” 1 in June 2020, when Moore’s daughter, S.M., was nine years old. When S.M. turned eleven—she was then in the sixth grade—her behavior deteriorated, and her grades began to slip. S.M.’s school apprised Moore of her daughter’s problematic behavior. Around this time, Moore also learned that S.M. was flirtatiously corresponding online with adults, including a purported online boyfriend named Aden, who was allegedly in his 20s. Concerned that her daughter was vulnerable, Moore took away S.M.’s electronic devices. Eventually, however, S.M. told Moore 1 App. to Opening Br. at A469. 2 that she had been using her school-issued Chromebook to communicate with Aden online. On the morning of January 19, 2023, Moore shared her concerns regarding S.M.’s online safety with the school’s principal, Jane Manley. Moore asked Manley to keep S.M.’s Chromebook from her when she was not actively using it for school assignments. Later that day, Manley and Karen Banta, one of S.M.’s teachers, met with S.M. to discuss online safety concerns and her online communications with strangers. During the meeting, Banta asked S.M. if everything was okay at home. In response, S.M. wrote a note that read: “My mom’s boyfriend has been sexually harassing me. I tried to tell my mom a while ago, but she said[,] ‘That’s what happens when you fight with him.’”2 After reviewing the note, Manley contacted law enforcement. B That same day, the Wilmington Police Department assigned Sergeant Sarah Bozeman to investigate S.M.’s allegations. Because of S.M.’s age, Sergeant Bozeman scheduled a forensic interview of S.M. at the Children’s Advocacy Center (“CAC”). 2 State’s Ex. 2. 3  During her interview, S.M. described how Clark had touched her inappropriately. According to S.M., Clark had, most recently, “barged in” to her room, touched her “chest area” over her clothes, and told her that he only did it because he thought she “liked it.”3 S.M. told him to “stop,” and he left to “take a shower.” 4 S.M. also described an incident