State v. Chisholm, 818 N.W.2d 707

Rodney Chisholm was convicted of murder for killing Donald Chisholm during a dispute over farmland belonging to their mother.
Rodney testified self-defense and introduced extensive character evidence about Donald's alleged aggressiveness and confrontational nature.
Rodney sought to admit two prior incidents in which Donald allegedly brandished firearms 10–20 years earlier; the district court ruled these were too remote in time and excluded them.
The district court explained admissibility under ND Evidence Rules 404(a)(2) and 405, distinguishing general character evidence from specific acts for self-defense claims.
The jury, after hearing evidence, found Rodney guilty; he was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment, and the judgment was appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding prior-acts evidence	Chisholm contends prior acts were probative of victim’s violence and defendant’s knowledge.	Chisholm argues remoteness should not bar admissibility for state-of-mind purposes.	No abuse; evidence too remote to be probative.

State v. Thompson, 777 N.W.2d 617 (N.D. 2010) (evidentiary abuse standard and discretion review)
State v. Procive, 771 N.W.2d 259 (N.D. 2009) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Gagnon, 589 N.W.2d 560 (N.D. 1999) (specific instances to prove victim's character in self-defense cases)
Commonwealth v. Fontes, 488 N.E.2d 760 (Mass. 1986) (remoteness and admissibility of prior acts in homicide self-defense)
Kartell, 790 N.E.2d 739 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003) (knowledge of victim's prior violent acts limited by remoteness)
People v. Conley, 713 N.E.2d 131 (Ill. App. 1999) (prior acts as admissible to show defendant’s state of mind)
State v. Ryan, S.W.3d 281 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) (remoteness and admissibility of prior acts in self-defense)