Adam Watkins, Below-Appellant v. State of Delaware, Below-Appellee

Summary

The court held that evidence concerning a nearby bank robbery was relevant and admissible because it materially supported Watkins's misidentification defense and had sufficient probative value. The trial judge abused his discretion by excluding the evidence based on the differences between the crimes, and the exclusion deprived Watkins of his sole defense. The convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.