State v. Acker, 2015 ND 278

Gino Acker was convicted of aggravated assault by a jury and appeals the judgment.
Acker argues the district court erred by admitting his prior sexual assault conviction into evidence.
The court denied pretrial motion to prohibit admission of the sexual assault conviction; at trial the conviction was admitted.
Impeachment of Acker and Johnson occurred; multiple witnesses testified about a stabbing and competing accounts.
The sexual assault conviction was mentioned during cross-examination and twice during closing arguments, with other impeachment evidence also presented.
The Supreme Court reverses and remands for a new trial due to improper admission of the prior conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior conviction	Acker argues Rule 609 requires balancing probative value and prejudice.	State contends admission was proper under Rule 609 given impeachment value.	Admission was error; balancing not articulated.
Harmlessness of error	Error was prejudicial given repeated references and similarity of offenses.	Not prejudicial; error was harmless due to limited mentions.	Error not harmless; reversal warranted.

State v. Doppler, 828 N.W.2d 502 (ND 2013) (probative value vs. prejudice must be weighed; explicit balancing required)
State v. Murchison, 541 N.W.2d 435 (ND 1995) (trial court must mention factors and balancing; improper weighing is reversible)
State v. Eugene, 536 N.W.2d 692 (ND 1995) (necessity of articulating balancing factors and impact on credibility)
State v. Chisholm, 2012 ND 147 (ND 2012) (abuse of discretion review for evidentiary rulings)