Gaddie v. State, 11 N.W.3d 21

David Gaddie was convicted in North Dakota of gross sexual imposition, based on allegations of child sexual abuse.
The State attempted to introduce evidence, via a forensic interview video, that Gaddie had also sexually abused the child’s mother, although those charges had been dismissed.
Gaddie's counsel had been assured pre-trial that prior bad act evidence (the abuse of the mother) would not be introduced, but this evidence appeared in exhibits shown to the jury.
Gaddie sought postconviction relief, arguing prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel, among other claims.
The district court denied relief, finding no misconduct and characterizing the situation as a misunderstanding.
On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding Gaddie suffered prejudice because prejudicial prior bad act evidence was introduced without the requisite notice and analysis under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Prior Bad Acts	Evidence of abuse of the mother was inadmissible 404(b) evidence	Evidence not clearly inadmissible; Gaddie did not request redaction	Evidence inadmissible under 404(b), no notice given
Prosecutorial Misconduct	State’s knowing violation of 404(b) notice = misconduct	At worst, a misunderstanding; no nefarious intent shown	Misconduct occurred regardless of intent
Prejudice to Defendant	Introduction of prior bad act evidence caused prejudice	No evidence jury was prejudiced by brief exposure to evidence	Prejudice presumed due to nature of evidence
Entitlement to Postconviction Relief	Conviction obtained in violation of due process/fair trial rights	No due process violation; district court’s remedy was sufficient	Relief granted: conviction vacated, remanded

State v. Blotske, 899 N.W.2d 661 (N.D. 2017) (prior sexual misconduct evidence is highly prejudicial in sex offense trials)
State v. Lyman, 978 N.W.2d 734 (N.D. 2022) (framework for prosecutorial misconduct analysis)
State v. Aabrekke, 800 N.W.2d 284 (N.D. 2011) (reversal for admission of prejudicial prior act evidence without proper analysis)
State v. Osier, 569 N.W.2d 441 (N.D. 1997) (reversal for improper admission of prior sexual misconduct evidence)
State v. Van Halsey, 970 N.W.2d 227 (N.D. 2022) (Rule 404(b) admissibility test and required analysis)