State v. Gipp
2013 ND 134
| N.D. | 2013Background
- In March 2012 Nelson Gipp made threatening phone calls to Charles Murphy Sr. and Jr., accusing Murphy Sr. of child molestation and threatening to kill him.
- Gipp admitted making the calls during an FBI interview and alleged Murphy Sr. had sexually abused him as a child.
- Gipp was charged with terrorizing; the charge was later amended to menacing and Gipp entered a conditional guilty plea.
- Gipp told the State he intended to introduce evidence that Murphy Sr. had sexually abused him.
- The State moved in limine to exclude evidence of past sexual abuse; the district court granted the motion in a one-paragraph order (no hearing).
- Gipp argued the accusation that Murphy Sr. was a molester was relevant to show his state of mind and sought to introduce or question witnesses about the alleged abuse; the court excluded evidence proving past abuse and did not rule on Gipp’s motion to reconsider.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the portion of Gipp’s statements accusing Murphy Sr. of molestation was excluded by the in limine order | The State contended the order excluded the molestation allegation evidence | Gipp contended the molestation accusation was admissible to provide context and show his state of mind during the threat | The court held the order excluded evidence of past abuse but did not bar admission of the accusation when offered only for context/state of mind (N.D.R.Ev. 106 principle) |
| Whether evidence proving the truth of the past sexual abuse allegation was admissible | The State argued such evidence was irrelevant to elements of menacing and should be excluded | Gipp sought to prove the allegation true via testimony and witnesses to impeach Murphy Sr. | The court held testimony offered to prove past abuse was irrelevant to the charged crime and properly excluded; district court did not abuse its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompson, 777 N.W.2d 617 (N.D. 2010) (defines relevance and test for whether evidence tends to prove a fact in issue)
- State v. Chacano, 826 N.W.2d 294 (N.D. 2013) (explains district court’s broad discretion on evidentiary rulings and standard for abuse of discretion)