Court Opinion

ID: 9671425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:36:23.996625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:10.019993
License: Public Domain

MARING, Justice,
concurring specially.
While I agree with the majority opinion, I write separately to note that I do not endorse the method used to introduce prior conviction evidence in this ease. Prior conviction evidence, especially when used against a person accused of a crime, is potentially very prejudicial. Such evidence “presents a high risk of undermining accurate factfinding.” Wright and Gold, 28 Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 6132 at 200 (1993). For this reason, prior conviction evidence may only be admitted against an accused in specific circumstances, for specific reasons, and after consideration by the court. See Rule 404(b), N.D.R.Ev. (allowing admission of prior conviction evidence by the court to show “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown”) (emphasis added); and Rule 609(a), N.D.R.Ev. (allowing admission against an accused of prior felony conviction evidence for a crime not involving dishonesty or false statement only “if the court determines that the ‘probative value of admitting that evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused ”) (emphasis added). In this case, there is nothing in the record indicating that the prosecutor made an attempt to gain the court’s approval for the admission of prior conviction evidence against McDonell as required by our Rules of Evidence. The use of such trial tactics is unacceptable.
McDonell, however, did not object to the State’s introduction of the prior conviction evidence. This court may notice errors that are not brought to the attention of the trial court only when they are obvious errors affecting substantial rights. Rule 52(b), N.D.R.Crim.P. In reviewing nonconstitu-tional errors, this court determines “whether the error was so prejudicial that substantial injury occurred and a different decision would have resulted without the error.” State v. Eugene, 536 N.W.2d 692, 696 (N.D.1995). I agree with the majority that the admission of the prior conviction evidence did not cause substantial injury in this particular case.
I, therefore, concur.