closing statements in such trials, where the parties will be afforded the opportunity to request that the trial judge consider relevant lesser-included offenses. A party’s failure to request adjudication of a lesser-included offense during that conference will be deemed knowing and intentional. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the Superior Court convicting Ramsey of Attempted First Degree Robbery of Pantoja-Lara is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. 1 . Ramsey was convicted of other offenses, which are not the subject of, or otherwise affected by, this appeal. 2 . State v. Bridgers, 988 A.2d 939, 944 (Del.Super.Ct.2007), aff’d, 970 A.2d 257 (Table), 2009 WL 824536 (Del. Mar. 30, 2009) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Ross v. State, 560 A.2d 491 (Table), 1989
holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank holding judge in bank robbery prosecution did not abuse discretion in refusing to excuse juror whose wife was bank employee or juror whose daughter had been victim of bank robbery holding that defendants act of threatening bank customers who otherwise simply watched defendants rob the bank constituted aggravated menacing rather than robbery holding the defendant properly convicted of multiple counts of armed robbery against bank employees even though the defendant robbed only the bank holding that an africanamerican investment advisor who accompanied two clients into a bank could assert a  51 claim alleging discrimination against the bank even though his clients were the actual customers of the bank