State v. Dieterle, 2013 ND 130

Background

Angela L. Dieterle was charged with simple assault for allegedly biting and striking her husband; she waived a jury and was tried by the district court.
Dieterle gave notice she would claim self-defense; the prosecutor gave notice of intent to use prior-bad-act evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b).
The original prosecutor was replaced; Dieterle agreed to deny the 404(b) motion without prejudice and did not renew it before the bench trial.
At trial the State cross-examined Dieterle about prior protection orders against former partners and alleged coaching of her children to fabricate testimony; Dieterle objected under Rule 404(b).
The district court overruled the objections as relevant to motive (and impeachment), admitted the evidence without a Rule 404(b) balancing record, and found Dieterle guilty.
On appeal Dieterle argued admission of the prior-act evidence violated Rule 404(b) and required reversal; the State argued the questioning was permissible impeachment and that any Rule 404(b) notice requirement did not apply.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior‑bad‑act evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b)	Evidence was admissible to show motive (or impeach) and thus properly elicited on cross‑examination	Admission violated Rule 404(b) because notice was not given and the State did not follow the rule or complete the required analysis	Admission was error for lack of Rule 404(b) analysis, but any error was harmless and conviction affirmed
Whether impeachment use of prior acts triggers Rule 404(b) notice	Cross‑examination impeachment can justify eliciting prior acts, so separate 404(b) notice is not required	404(b) notice is required when prior acts are used substantively and trial court must perform the 404(b) three‑step analysis	Court acknowledged debate but assumed arguendo 404(b) applied; did not adopt a bright‑line rule for impeachment vs. substantive use
Trial court’s obligation to make Rule 404(b) findings	The court properly admitted evidence for motive and/or impeachment	The court erred by failing to make the three‑step 404(b) analysis and balancing on the record	Court held the trial court erred by not making the required record of the 404(b) analysis but proceeded to harmless‑error review
Prejudice from admission of prior acts	Evidence did not affect substantial rights given other proof of the charged offense	Admission of un‑noticed prior‑act evidence was prejudicial and warrants reversal	Error was harmless; sufficient independent evidence supported conviction, so affirmation

Key Cases Cited

State v. Doppler, 828 N.W.2d 502 (2013) (discussing district court’s broad discretion on evidentiary rulings)
State v. Aabrekke, 800 N.W.2d 284 (2011) (articulating three‑step analysis for admitting other‑acts evidence under Rule 404(b))
State v. Stewart, 710 N.W.2d 403 (2006) (holding failure to satisfy Rule 404(b) notice can be harmless error when guilt is supported independently)
State v. Tresenriter, 823 N.W.2d 774 (2012) (issues not raised in district court are waived on appeal)
State v. Osier, 590 N.W.2d 205 (1999) (importance of raising objections at trial so the court can rule and create a record)