In Wynn v. State, 351 Md. 307, 718 A.2d 588 (1998), the Court sanctioned the no-knock execution of a search warrant of Wynn's home when it was shown that police knew that (1) Wynn had a long criminal background, including drug convictions, assault, burglary, and handgun convictions; (2) Wynn was on parole and had previously pulled a weapon on police; and (3) Wynn's wife may also have been present in the house and posed a danger to the police. 117 Md. App. at 168. "Sufficient particularized evidence existed to support the conclusion that the officers had an objectively reasonable belief that their personal safety was in danger because of appellant's and companion's prior violent and criminal actions." Id. at 167. The Court of Appeals thoroughly examined the general admissibility of other crimes or bad acts evidence and specifically analyzed the "absence of mistake" exception. The Court, in Wynn, stated: "Maryland Rule 5-404(b) means that evidence that the defendant committed other crimes or bad acts is not admissible unless it has special relevance - - that it 'is substantially relevant to some contested issue and is not offered simply to prove criminal character.'" Id. at 316 (quoting State v. Taylor, 347 Md. 363, 368, 701 A.2d 389 (1997)). In Wynn, the Court of Appeals reiterated and applied the three step analysis of Faulkner. Id. at 324. Explaining common factual scenarios within the absence of mistake exception, the Court stated: "If the defendant admits that he or she took an action, but claims to have done so unintentionally or by mistake, so that allegations of, for example, forgery, fraud, embezzlement, or malice are unfounded, the prosecution may offer evidence of his or her similar prior wrongs, acts, or crimes. This use of the evidence as proof of absence of mistake is merely the obverse of proof of intent." Wynn, 351 Md. at 325. Further, the Court of Appeals described a factual scenario in which a defendant asserts he was not responsible for the act causing injury, as the injury was caused by an independent accident. Wynn, 351 Md. at 326. After discussing many cases and authorities from Maryland, and other jurisdictions, the Court, in Wynn, held that for the "absence of mistake" exception in Maryland Rule 5-404(b) to apply, a defendant generally must make some assertion or put on a defense that he or she committed the act for which he or she is on trial, but did so by mistake. Id. at 326-31. Additionally, in order for the exception to apply, the crime or bad act allegedly committed by mistake must be the same crime or bad act for which the defendant is on trial. Id. at 332. In Wynn the petitioner did not testify "that he entered the house mistakenly or that the housebreaking was a mistake . . . petitioner did not assert that he mistakenly entered the Quigley residence and took the items at issue believing that he had a right to do so. Petitioner did not assert that he had stumbled mistakenly into the Quigley premises. Rather, petitioner asserted that he did not commit the acts with which he was charged." (351 Md. at 331.)