Coppage v. State, 826 N.W.2d 320

Coppage was charged with attempted murder in 2006; a pretrial motion in limine to exclude domestic-violence conduct was granted.
During trial Coppage testified to defending himself; State cross-examined him about alcohol use and prior acts.
Outside the jury, the State sought to admit Coppage's 2004 misdemeanor domestic assault conviction for impeachment; the court overruled objections for limited use.
Jury returned verdict: guilty of attempted murder and aggravated assault as a lesser-included offense.
Coppage appealed; this Court affirmed; Coppage later sought post-conviction relief arguing ineffective assistance and other claims.
On remand, district court granted post-conviction relief, finding trial counsel ineffective for not requesting a limiting instruction and ordering a new trial on attempted murder.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was trial counsel ineffective for not requesting a limiting instruction?	Coppage	Coppage	Remanded to assess prejudice with proper law
Was Coppage prejudiced by the use of prior-conviction impeachment evidence?	Coppage, opened the door	State	Rule 609 analysis misapplied; door-opening and 403 balancing must be reconsidered
Did the district court correctly apply law on ineffective assistance and prejudice on remand?	Coppage	State	Law applied inconsistently; remand required to reweigh prejudice in context
Should post-conviction counsel be deemed ineffective for not raising these issues earlier?	Coppage	State	Mandate requires analysis of post-conviction counsels’ effectiveness; remand

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
Wright v. State, 2005 ND 217 (ND 2005) (requires prejudice showing for ineffective assistance)
Laib v. State, 2005 ND 187 (ND 2005) (prejudice assessment within overall trial context)
State v. Stewart, 2002 ND 102 (ND 2002) (risks of admitting prior bad acts; limiting instructions and 403 balancing)