## Facts

- A 7‑11 store in New Castle, Delaware was robbed shortly before 4:00 a.m. on April 6, 2006.
- Three men entered with t‑shirts wrapped around their faces; two were armed.
- One robber pointed an assault rifle at the clerk and demanded money; another struck the clerk with a fake handgun while a third took cash from the register.
- Mark J. Manna was charged as a participant and tried in the Delaware Superior Court.
- At trial, Manna sought to present character witnesses to testify to his reputation for honesty and truthfulness.
- The trial court excluded all proffered character testimony, reasoning the State had not attacked Manna’s truthfulness and relying on D.R.E. 608; it also invoked D.R.E. 403, stating the evidence would only evoke sympathy.
- The jury convicted Manna of first-degree robbery, wearing a disguise during the commission of a felony, and second-degree conspiracy.
- Manna requested a missing-evidence (adverse inference) instruction based on evidence the State allegedly failed to preserve or produce; the trial court denied the request.

## Issues

1. Whether a criminal defendant’s reputation evidence for honesty and truthfulness, offered to show conduct in conformity with a pertinent character trait, is admissible under D.R.E. 404(a)(1) notwithstanding the State’s lack of an attack on credibility under D.R.E. 608.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under D.R.E. 403 by excluding all defense character evidence as sympathy-based.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying a missing-evidence (adverse inference) jury instruction.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court held the trial court erred as a matter of law by using D.R.E. 608 to bar character evidence offered under D.R.E. 404(a)(1) to show action in conformity with a pertinent trait.
- The Court held the trial court abused its discretion by categorically excluding all such character evidence under D.R.E. 403.
- The Court held the trial court did not err in denying the requested missing-evidence instruction.
- The convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial due to the erroneous exclusion of character evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under D.R.E. 404(a)(1), a criminal defendant may introduce evidence of a pertinent character trait as substantive evidence that the defendant acted in conformity with that trait.
- D.R.E. 608 governs rehabilitation of a witness’s credibility after attack; it does not control admissibility when the accused offers character evidence to prove conduct in conformity under D.R.E. 404(a)(1).
- A trial court may place reasonable limits on the number of character witnesses, but may not use D.R.E. 403 to impose a blanket exclusion of all pertinent defense character evidence with probative value.
- When admitted character evidence is such that a reasonable juror could believe it, the defendant is entitled to an instruction directing the jury to consider whether the character evidence raises a reasonable doubt.
- A missing-evidence instruction requires satisfaction of Delaware’s criteria (including duty to preserve and materiality); denial is proper where the showing is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Delaware Supreme Court ordered a new trial because the Superior Court improperly barred Manna from presenting pertinent character evidence under D.R.E. 404(a)(1) and abused its discretion by excluding all such evidence under D.R.E. 403, while affirming the denial of a missing-evidence instruction.


Manna v. State, 945 A.2d 1149 (Del. 2008)