State v. Halsey, 970 N.W.2d 227

Background

Officers found Mitchell Halsey passed out and identified him; a dispatch check revealed an outstanding warrant described as for aggravated assault.
While being arrested, officers discovered methamphetamine in Halsey’s pocket.
Halsey told an officer he had recently tested positive for COVID; while a mask was being put on him he coughed in the officer’s direction (charged as attempted contact by bodily fluids).
After medical clearance Halsey refused to get into the patrol car and dropped to the ground; officers eventually forced him into the car (charged as preventing arrest).
At trial Officer Mehrer testified the warrant was “for aggravated assault.” Defense did not object immediately but objected moments later when the State offered the warrant into evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 401/403 and 404(b). The court admitted the warrant and the jury convicted Halsey of all counts.
On appeal Halsey argued the district court erred in admitting evidence identifying the underlying felony on the warrant; the State defended preservation, specificity, admissibility, and notice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation: timeliness of objection to naming the underlying charge	Objection came too late — Halsey failed to object when officer first named the felony, so claim not preserved	Counsel objected moments later when exhibit was offered; still within same witness examination	Objection was timely — raised "mere moments" later with opportunity for court to cure; issue preserved
Specificity of objection under N.D.R.Ev. 103(a)(1)(B)	Halsey failed to state specific grounds at the time, so arguments cannot be raised on appeal	Defense cited Rules 401, 403, and 404(b) at the objection	Citing the rule numbers and context made the grounds apparent; specificity requirement satisfied
Admissibility under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 (prior bad act / prejudicial effect)	Warrant and underlying charge were relevant to prove element (preventing arrest for a felony) and not unfairly prejudicial	Underlying aggravated assault is prior bad-act/character evidence; court failed to complete 404(b) three-step analysis and give limiting instruction; admission was prejudicial	Court acknowledged incomplete formal 404(b) analysis (missed third step) but found the warrant reliable and court did perform a 403 balancing; error was harmless because independent evidence supports convictions
Rule 404(b) notice and Old Chief stipulation issue	Any lack of specific pretrial notice was harmless; State filed the warrant as an exhibit before trial	State gave no reasonable 404(b) notice; Old Chief suggests the name/nature of a prior felony is unduly prejudicial and could be avoided by a stipulation	Failure to give detailed pretrial notice was harmless here; Old Chief’s rule about accepting stipulation does not control where defendant did not offer to stipulate, so admission was not an abuse absent a stipulation

Key Cases Cited

Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (holding details of a prior felony may be excluded when a defendant stipulates to the fact of conviction because the details create undue prejudice)
State v. Shaw, 883 N.W.2d 889 (2016) (articulating Rule 404(b) three-step analysis and requirement to consider Rule 403 balancing)
State v. Dieterle, 833 N.W.2d 473 (2013) (holding failure to complete 404(b)/403 record can be harmless where independent evidence supports conviction)
United States v. Adejumo, 772 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2014) (finding an objection ‘‘mere moments’’ after testimony can preserve the issue because the court still had opportunity to remedy prejudice)
State v. Hayek, 689 N.W.2d 422 (2004) (explaining requirement to object at the time alleged evidentiary error occurs)
State v. Aabrekke, 800 N.W.2d 284 (2011) (noting a limiting instruction usually satisfies the third prong of the 404(b) analysis)