In Sessoms v. State, 357 Md. 274, 744 A.2d 9 (2000), the defendant was charged with rape, assault, and other sexual offenses. He defended on the grounds that the alleged rape victim falsely accused him of rape in order to cover for her brother's involvement in the robbery of the defendant and another individual named Pitman. The defendant claimed that he was attacked, rendered unconscious, robbed, and awoke to a rape charge. At trial for the rape, the defendant wanted to introduce evidence of Pitman's robbery by the alleged rape victim's brother in an attempt to build his defense. The trial court excluded the evidence on the grounds that it was impermissible under Rule 5-404(b). On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the prohibition in Rule 5-404(b) does not apply when a defendant proffers other crimes, wrongs, or acts of a third party in an attempt to exculpate himself or herself. Id. at 290-92. The Court of Appeals adopted the reasoning set forth by the other states, stating: "We hold that the same interpretation shall be given to Maryland Rule 5-404(b)." Id. at 291. Applying the rule to the facts in Sessoms, the Court held that, "although the evidence defendant wanted to present did not directly point towards someone else committing the crime, it does provide a theory of the case that attempts to exculpate him." Id. The evidence was held to be exculpatory because it would have helped the defendant establish that he was robbed and rendered unconscious and thus unable to rape the alleged victim. The task of determining whether the proffered evidence exculpates the defendant or gives credence to the theory that someone else other than the defendant committed the crime is approached on a case-by-case basis. Sessoms, 357 Md. at 290. The Court of Appeals held that Md. Rule 5-404(b) is applicable only to the defendant and that evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts may be admitted against a witness. Id. at 287. The Court of Appeals stated, "evidence of a witness's past bad behavior, when the witness is not the defendant, does not imply that the defendant possesses a propensity to commit a specific type of crime." Id. The risks to the defendant are absent when the defendant is offering such evidence against a witness or other third party in an attempt to prove facts pertinent to a defense. Id. at 288. Thus, the evidence was not rendered inadmissible by Md. Rule 5-404(b). In a survey of other states, the Court of Appeals stated: Several states have made similar interpretations of their other crimes evidence statutes. People v. Flowers, 644 P.2d 916, 919 1982("The test for admissibility of similar offense evidence introduced by the defendant . . . must (be) decide(d) . . . on a case-by-case basis."); People v. Bueno, 626 P.2d 1167, 1170 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981) ("When offered by the defendant, evidence of similar transactions is admissible as long as it is relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused."); Commonwealth v. Jewett, 392 Mass. 558, 563, 467 N.E.2d 155, 158 (1984) ("When a defendant offers exculpatory evidence . . . prejudice ceases to be a factor, and relevance should function as the admissibility standard."); Garfole, 76 N.J. at 452-53, 388 A.2d at 591 ("When the defendant is offering (other crimes evidence) exculpatorily, prejudice to the defendant is no longer a factor, and simple relevance to guilt or innocence should suffice as the standard of admissibility, since ordinarily . . . an accused is entitled to advance in his or her defense any evidence which may rationally tend to refute his or her guilt or buttress his or her innocence of the charge made."); State v. Dreher, 302 N.J. Super. 408, 456-57, 695 A.2d 672, 695 (App. Div.) ("(O)ther crimes' evidence about a State's witness is often admitted when offered by criminal defendants for exculpatory reasons."), cert. denied, 152 N.J. 10, 702 A.2d 349 (1997); Williams, 214 N.J. Super. at 20, 518 A.2d at 238 ("It is well established that a defendant may use similar 'other crimes' evidence defensively if in reason it tends, alone or with other evidence, to negate his or her guilt of the crime charged against him.") (Id. at 290-91.)