Hayden v. Medcenter One, Inc., 2013 ND 46

Doppler’s apartment was searched on May 18, 2011, by Dickinson Police with probation supervision; a small amount of methamphetamine and two glass pipes with meth traces were found.
Doppler previously was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia (both class C felonies) and sentenced to five years with two suspended, plus probation.
At trial, the State impeached Doppler with questions about being a convicted felon and the dates of prior convictions; defense objected but no sustained ruling was clearly recorded.
The State highlighted the convictions during closing arguments, implying credibility issues and propensities.
A bench conference regarding Rule 609 and balancing was partially recorded; the transcript of the bench conference was incomplete and later supplemented.
This appeal challenges the admission of Doppler’s prior convictions for impeachment and their use in closing arguments; the Supreme Court reverses and remands for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 609(a)(1) balancing was properly applied	Doppler’s convictions were admissible as impeachment if probative value outweighed prejudice.	District court failed to articulate or weigh the balancing factors required by 609(a)(1).	Abuse of discretion; improper balancing requires reversal.
Did the court properly weigh probative value against prejudicial effect	Convictions provided probative impeachment value.	Five factors show the prejudicial impact outweighed the value.	Record failed to show proper application of balancing; error.
Was the error obvious and did it affect substantial rights	No objection preserved the issue; harmless if not affecting substantial rights.	Error was obvious and affected substantial rights due to closing argument references.	Yes; the error affected substantial rights and was obvious.
Was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	The case relied on officers’ testimony; probative convictions did not alter outcome.	Closing argument used convictions to imply propensity; not harmless.	Not harmless under Rule 52(a); requires reversal and remand.

State v. Chisholm, 2012 ND 147 (ND 2012) (broad discretion in evidentiary rulings; abuse when misapplied law)
State v. Eugene, 536 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 1995) (proper Rule 609(a)(1) balancing required; inadequate explanation reversible)
State v. Bohe, 447 N.W.2d 277 (N.D. 1989) (factors for weighing probative value vs prejudice)
State v. Murchison, 541 N.W.2d 435 (N.D. 1995) (need explicit articulation of balancing factors)
State v. Eugene, 536 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 1995) (see above (duplicate entry kept for completeness))
State v. Randall, 2002 ND 16 (ND 2002) (special risk to defendant; burden on State to show probative value)
State v. Schmeets, 2009 ND 163 (ND 2009) (limits on propensity evidence; necessity of limiting instructions)
State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50 (ND 1998) (discretion to correct obvious error when affects fairness)
United States v. Millard, 139 F.3d 1200 (8th Cir. 1998) (plain error for improper prior-conviction use; propensity concerns)
State v. Hernandez, 2005 ND 214 (ND 2005) (invites obvious-error framework; need substantial rights impact)
State v. Saulter, 2009 ND 78 (ND 2009) (harmless-error analysis for evidentiary error in trials)