State v. Doppler, 828 N.W.2d 502

Doppler was convicted at trial of possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia after a search of his apartment on May 18, 2011.
Officers found a small amount of meth and two glass pipes with meth residue; Doppler had prior felony convictions used to support probation.
During trial, the State impeached Doppler with questions about being a convicted felon; initial objection was overruled and the dates of convictions were elicited.
The State highlighted the convictions in closing, and a bench conference about Rule 609(a)(1) occurred but the record did not clearly show proper balancing.
A supplemental transcript revealed the district court discussed Rule 609 and the potential applicability of the balancing test, but did not articulate explicit balancing factors.
Doppler’s counsel recalled arguments under 401/403 balancing and that the court weighed relevance and prejudice; the record did not show explicit consideration of the required factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper balancing under 609(a)(1)	Doppler argues the court did not properly weigh probative value against prejudice.	State argues convictions are admissible for impeachment under 609(a)(1) with balancing.	Court failed to show proper balancing; admission invalid.
Use of prior convictions in closing	Convictions were used to suggest propensity beyond impeachment.	Convictions were relevant to credibility and did not improperly suggest propensity.	Closing argument improperly emphasized convictions as propensity evidence.
Rule 404(b) implications	Convictions acted as bad-acts evidence beyond impeachment.	Evidence was impeachment-related and within Rule 609 framework.	Improper use of past acts raised 404(b)-like concerns; not properly limited.
Harmless error analysis	Even if error, it was harmless given other evidence.	Error could be harmless depending on record.	Error not harmless; cumulative impact affected substantial rights.
Plain error and remedy	There was obvious error due to failure to balance and limiting instructions.	Standard for plain error requires clear deviation from law.	Error deemed plain and prejudicial; reversal appropriate.

State v. Eugene, 536 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 1995) (balancing under 609(a)(1) required; improper analysis deemed inadequate)
State v. Murchison, 541 N.W.2d 435 (N.D. 1995) (need explicit articulation of balancing factors)
State v. Bohe, 447 N.W.2d 277 (N.D. 1989) (five-factor balancing for probative value vs prejudice)
State v. Randall, 2002 ND 16 (N.D. 2002) (special risk when defendant is accused; burden on state to show probative value outweighs prejudice)
State v. Schmeets, 2009 ND 163 (N.D. 2009) (propensity risk from prior acts; 404(b) and 609 interplay; warning on limiting instructions)
State v. Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240 (N.D. 2012) (obvious error standard under Rule 52; requires plain error affecting substantial rights)
State v. Stewart, 2002 ND 102 (N.D. 2002) (record must show meaningful balancing; brief hearing acceptable with explicit findings)
State v. Sautter, 2009 ND 78 (N.D. 2009) (Rule 52 analysis for harmless error in light of entire record)
United States v. Millard, 139 F.3d 1200 (8th Cir. 1998) (plain error in admission of prior convictions may affect verdict)