Adams v. State, 124 A.3d 38

Adams was convicted in October 2014 of possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, possession of ammunition by a person prohibited, carrying a concealed deadly weapon, and conspiracy; sentenced to five years for the firearms offense with other terms suspended for probation.
Adams appealed the denial of admission of a two-sentence 2013 affidavit by his brother Javan Cale, which defense argued supported exculpatory testimony and rebutted claims of recent fabrication.
Cale testified with multiple versions of how guns ended up in the car; the State highlighted inconsistencies to argue recent fabrication for Adams’s benefit.
Defense sought to admit Cale’s affidavit after Cale testified, arguing it rebutted the State’s suggestion of fabrication and showed Cale’s statements predated his plea.
The trial court excluded the affidavit as marginally useful and cumulative, ultimately ruling it inadmissible; the State did not object to the grounds of cumulative value.
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding the affidavit was admissible under DRE 801(d)(1)(B) to rebut a charge of recent fabrication and that exclusion was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit by Cale was admissible under DRE 801(d)(1)(B).	Adams: affidavit rebutted recent fabrication charge; not merely cumulative.	State: affidavit was cumulative and unnecessary; not admissible.	Yes, admissible under DRE 801(d)(1)(B); exclusion was error.

Jones v. State, 940 A.2d 1 (Del. 2007) (standard for evidentiary rulings and harmless error considerations)
Edwards v. State, 925 A.2d 1281 (Del. 2007) (harmless error and appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
Van Arsdall v. State, 524 A.2d 3 (Del. 1987) (prejudice balancing in evidentiary rulings)
Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1994) (prior consistent statements to rebut recent fabrication need preexisting timing)