Cameron Norwood, Defendant-Below v. State of Delaware, Plaintiff-Below

Summary

The court held that the Superior Court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that a third party had committed highly similar robberies at the same store with two identified participants in the charged robbery. The evidence was admissible reverse Rule 404(b) evidence because it was offered to support Norwood's misidentification defense, was relevant to the identity of the third perpetrator, and was not substantially outweighed by prejudice, confusion, or delay. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.