Nathaniel Banks, Below v. State of Delaware, Below

Summary

The court affirmed Banks's convictions, holding that the trial court properly excluded proposed testimony about Saunders's threats toward another woman and her post-assault statement that Banks would get what he deserved. The excluded evidence was either irrelevant to Saunders's alleged bias or had probative value substantially outweighed by confusion and prejudice, and Banks could still present his self-defense theory and evidence supporting a motive to fabricate. The court also held that, even assuming evidentiary error, Banks showed neither significant prejudice nor a violation of his constitutional right to present a defense.