Norwood v. State, 95 A.3d 588

Norwood was charged with first-degree robbery and related offenses for a September 4, 2012 Family Dollar store robbery in Dover involving three men.
Norwood claimed innocence and sought to introduce Dixon as the true third man, arguing Dixon and others committed earlier robberies at the same store.
The State objected to admitting Dixon’s alleged prior involvement in the August 18, 2012 robbery and the August 27, 2012 attempted robbery, and the Superior Court excluded the evidence.
Norwood argued the evidence was admissible as reverse Rule 404(b) evidence to establish Dixon’s identity as the third man, and the jury was entitled to consider it for that purpose.
The jury ultimately convicted Norwood of the charged offenses, and the Superior Court’s exclusion of the Dixon evidence became the basis of this appeal.
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding the Dixon evidence should have been admitted as relevant, admissible reverse 404(b) evidence under Rule 404(b) and Rule 402, with proper balancing under Rule 403.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reverse Rule 404(b) evidence of Dixon’s prior robberies was admissible.	Norwood argues Dixon’s prior acts are probative of Dixon’s identity as the third man.	The State contends Dixon’s prior acts are irrelevant and prejudicial.	Yes; reverse 404(b) evidence admissible for identity with proper safeguards.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the evidence.	Norwood asserts exclusion undermines a misidentification defense.	State claims exclusion was proper on relevancy and 403 grounds.	Yes; abuse of discretion; evidence should have been admitted.
Whether the probative value of Dixon’s prior acts outweighed any prejudice under Rule 403.	Exclusion would meagerly serve to prevent prejudice; probative value substantial.	Admission could confuse or prejudice the jury.	Not substantially outweighed; admissible.
Whether the evidence was relevant under Rule 402 and offered for a proper purpose.	Evidence supports misidentification defense by showing third party involvement.	Evidence lacks relevance and would mislead.	Yes; relevant to identity and proper purpose.

Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1988) (admissibility requires 404(b) safeguards: proper purpose, relevancy, 403 balancing, limiting instruction)
Smith v. State, 913 A.2d 1197 (Del.2006) (admissibility framework for Rule 404(b) evidence in Delaware)
Kiser v. State, 769 A.2d 736 (Del.2001) (relevance and probative value in Delaware Rule 402/403 analysis)
Watkins v. State, 23 A.3d 151 (Del.2011) (relevance standards; materiality and probative value defined)
Getz v. State, 538 A.2d 726 (Del.1988) (probative value and materiality principles in Delaware)