State v. Ritter, 10 N.W.3d 119

Cody Wayne Ritter was convicted by a jury for sexually assaulting his 15-year-old stepdaughter, based largely on the minor’s testimony and a video of her forensic interview at the Children’s Advocacy Center.
During trial, the defense discussed the forensic interview video, which included other incidents of alleged abuse, during opening statements and cross-examination.
The district court admitted the entire video into evidence after defense counsel questioned the minor about incidents in Texas, overruling objections about its prejudicial content under N.D.R.Ev. 403.
Neither party played the video or discussed its contents with the jury during trial; the jury first viewed the video in its entirety during deliberations at their request.
Ritter argued on appeal that admitting the whole video was an abuse of discretion under Rule 403 and violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed Ritter’s conviction, finding the district court misapplied evidentiary law in admitting the video.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of forensic interview video under Rule 403	Video relevant and probative to minor’s state of mind	Entire video is overly prejudicial, includes other incidents	Reversed: Court misapplied law, failed to weigh prejudice
Whether defense "opened the door" to video	Door was broadly opened by defense's questions	Only specific Texas conduct discussed; video is much broader	"Open door" must be limited, assessed topic-by-topic
Whether prejudicial effect was properly weighed	Admissibility justified by defense's trial references	The video’s prejudicial effect unassessed; court never watched	Abuse of discretion: court did not review or weigh prejudice
Invited error/waiver	Defense comments invited admission of video	Objected properly; did not invite error or broadly open door	No waiver or invited error; error preserved

State v. Salou, 1 N.W.3d 602 (N.D.) (standard for abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
Haas v. Hudson & Wylie LLP, 940 N.W.2d 650 (N.D.) ("opening the door" doctrine explained)
State v. Hernandez, 707 N.W.2d 449 (N.D.) (limits on "opening the door" to otherwise inadmissible evidence)
Coppage v. State, 826 N.W.2d 320 (N.D.) (court must weigh prejudice/probative value even after door opened)
State v. Aabrekke, 800 N.W.2d 284 (N.D.) (admission of prior bad acts requires balancing prejudicial effect)
State v. Stewart, 646 N.W.2d 712 (N.D.) (Rule 609 balancing for evidence of prior convictions)