State v. Chase, 2015 ND 234

In 2007 Chase allegedly committed gross sexual imposition against Jane Doe; he was charged in 2013 and convicted by a jury.
At trial a witness mentioned Chase had been in jail and a medical professional referenced other victims; Chase moved for mistrial after each reference.
The district court denied mistrial motions and gave a curative jury instruction to disregard inadvertent references to prior or subsequent acts.
Chase sought to introduce evidence of prior consensual sexual encounters with Jane Doe to impeach her testimony about the location and number of encounters.
The district court allowed testimony that Chase had dated Jane Doe but excluded testimony about prior sexual activity under N.D.R.Ev. 412 for lack of the required 14-day written notice and because the State had not opened the door.
Chase appealed, arguing the mistrial denials and exclusion of prior-consensual-sex evidence violated his rights; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether references to jail and other victims required a mistrial	Any prejudice was cured by a curative instruction; admission harmless if independent evidence supports verdict	References were prejudicial and required mistrial	No abuse of discretion; curative instruction adequate; no manifest injustice
Whether evidence of prior consensual sexual acts was admissible under N.D.R.Ev. 412	Exclusion proper because defendant failed to comply with 14-day notice and no exception applied	Evidence was admissible to impeach Jane Doe and State opened the door by eliciting testimony suggesting multiple encounters	Exclusion affirmed: rule prohibits such evidence absent timely motion and in-camera hearing; State did not open the door
Whether exclusion violated due process / confrontation rights	Constitutional rights not violated because procedural requirements and protections apply	Exclusion denied defendant opportunity to test victim’s credibility	No constitutional violation; procedural noncompliance justified exclusion
Whether cumulative trial errors require new trial	Any errors were not fundamental and any prejudice was cured or harmless	Cumulative effect warranted reversal	No reversible error; conviction affirmed

State v. Skarsgard, 739 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 2007) (standard for mistrial review and abuse of discretion)
State v. Trout, 757 N.W.2d 556 (N.D. 2008) (prior-bad-acts admission harmless if independent evidence supports verdict)
State v. Hernandez, 707 N.W.2d 449 (N.D. 2005) (jury presumed to follow curative instructions)
State v. Klose, 657 N.W.2d 276 (N.D. 2003) (mistrial is an extreme remedy; manifest injustice standard)
State v. Sevigny, 722 N.W.2d 515 (N.D. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Leinen, 598 N.W.2d 102 (N.D. 1999) (trial court’s broad discretion on evidentiary matters)
State v. Jensen, 606 N.W.2d 507 (N.D. 2000) (refusal to admit prior sexual-history evidence without N.D.R.Ev. 412 compliance affirmed)