Court Opinion

ID: 9513515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:37:08.425449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:53.730177
License: Public Domain

MARING, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
[¶ 50] I agree with parts I, III, and IV of the majority opinion. I respectfully disagree with parts II and V.
[¶ 51] I agree procedurally Riemers was in error when he attempted on cross-examination of Peters-Riemers to inquire whether she had hit him • on prior occasions. Rule 611(b), N.D.R.Ev., states, “[c]ross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.” Clearly, Riemers’ cross-examination was beyond the scope of direct. Rule 611(b), N.D.R.Ev., however, also states, “[t]he court, in the exercise of discretion, may permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.”
[¶ 52] Riemers’ attorney asked Peters-Riemers “Ever hit Roland in the past?” Peters-Riemers’ attorney objected on relevancy, and the court sustained the objection. At this point, there was nothing to indicate to the court this evidence was relevant. Riemers’ attorney, however, then advised the trial court Riemers was raising the issue of self-defense.2 I agree with the majority that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to permit Riemers’ attorney to present evidence on the relevant issue of self-defense.
[¶ 53] I disagree with the majority that Riemers should have called Peters-Riem-ers as an adverse party in his own case after the trial court sustained the objection on relevancy grounds. This evidence would not have been any more “relevant” at that point in the proceeding and, in my opinion, counsel would have exposed himself to sanctions for attempting to present evidence he was instructed was not relevant to any issue in the case. Had Peters-Riemers’ attorney made the proper objection Riemers would have had an opportunity to cure his procedural error by present*95ing the testimony in his ease.3
[¶ 54] In exercising its discretion, however, the trial court should keep in mind an application for a domestic violence protection order is .a civil action in the nature of an application for injunctive relief. Steckler v. Steckler, 492 N.W.2d 76, 80 (N.D.1992). It is not a plenary action that requires a full-blown trial. Sandbeck v. Rockwell, 524 N.W.2d 846, 849 (N.D. 1994). The purpose of a civil protection order is to prevent domestic violence in the future. See Catherine F. Klein & Leslye E. Orloff, Providing Legal Protection for Battered Women: An Analysis of State Statutes and Case Law, 21 Hofstra L.Rev. 801, 810-11 (1993). This is not a criminal action. Although our legislature has said self-defense can be raised in this civil action, a trial judge “shall exercise reasonable control over the mode ... of interrogating witnesses ... so as to ... (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.” Rule 611(a), N.D.R.Ev. Trial courts must be ever vigilant not to permit 'the revictimization of victims of domestic violence in these cases. Judges handling domestic violence actions must look carefully to determine whether there is a primary aggressor in a violent relationship, whether one party uses violence by the other party as a justification for his own violence, or whether one party’s violence is in fact self-defense. Klein & Orloff, supra at 1076.
[¶ 55] Here the trial court did not allow any examination of Peters-Riemers on the issue of her past violence with Riemers. I disagree with the majority that this was nonprejudicial. Our Court has held it is prejudicial error requiring a new trial to deny cross-examination with respect °to material evidence. Knoepfle v. Suko, 108 N.W.2d 456, 463 (N.D.1961). I, therefore, would reverse and remand for a new hearing on the application for a protection order.
[¶ 56] Mary Muehlen Maring

. Although Riemers' counsel did not make an offer of proof, one can tell from the context of the question what evidence he was seeking to introduce. Rule 103(2), N.D.R.Ev. I would, however, encourage counsel to make offers of proof in order to give the trial court an opportunity to make intelligent rulings and so as not to leave this court with such a bare bones record to review on appeal.

. Somewhat analogous are objections to foundation that are not sufficiently specific to afford the other parly an opportunity to cure by further testimony. Collom v. Pierson, 411 N.W.2d 92, 95 (N.D. 1987). Here, too, had the proper objection been made counsel's error could have been cured.