Interest of Tanner, 2012 ND 127

Rodney Chisholm killed his brother Donald during a dispute over farmland owned by their mother; he later led authorities to the body.
Rodney admitted the killing and claimed self-defense, detailing a struggle and the use of restraints and an iron pipe.
Rodney introduced extensive reputation/character evidence about Donald’s aggressiveness and abusive tendencies.
Rodney sought to introduce two prior acts by Donald (gun incidents 10–20 years earlier) to show victim’s violent propensity; the court excluded as too remote.
The district court ruled the prior incidents were too remote in time and refused to admit them; the jury found Rodney guilty of murder and he was sentenced to 30 years.
The appellate court affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the remote prior-acts evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion admitting victim’s prior acts.	State argues evidence is admissible to rebut victim’s peacefulness and show state of mind.	Chisholm contends prior acts were relevant to self-defense and defendant’s reasonable belief of danger.	No abuse; remoteness supports exclusion.

State v. Thompson, 777 N.W.2d 617 (ND 2010) (broad discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; abuse of discretion review)
State v. Procive, 771 N.W.2d 259 (ND 2009) (evidentiary rulings; admissibility principles)
State v. Olander, 575 N.W.2d 658 (ND 1998) (character evidence of the victim in homicide cases; limitations on admissibility)
State v. McIntyre, 488 N.W.2d 612 (ND 1992) (admissibility of victim’s character in self-defense context)
State v. Gagnon, 589 N.W.2d 560 (ND 1999) (limits on specific instances of conduct to prove victim’s character in self-defense)