State v. Thomas, 975 N.W.2d 562

In Feb. 2021 Ephrium Thomas was charged with robbery and terrorizing a child after an alleged assault in which the victim (John Doe) said Thomas demanded and took an eight‑ball of cocaine (~3.5 g).
Three months after the incident a detective recorded an interview in which Thomas said he "would risk getting a charge if it was like a key or more," using "key" (detective testified) to mean a kilogram.
Thomas objected before and during trial to admission of the recorded statement on grounds it was highly prejudicial, more prejudicial than probative, and would confuse the jury; the court admitted it into evidence.
The jury convicted Thomas of robbery and terrorizing a child; Thomas appealed arguing the district court erred in admitting the statement.
The Supreme Court reviewed the evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Relevance under Rules 401–402	The statement makes it more probable Thomas would rob someone for cocaine and thus is relevant to charged crime	The statement has no probative value and is not relevant to the robbery/terrorizing charged	Admissible — court did not abuse discretion; statement related to subject matter and was relevant
Unfair prejudice under Rule 403	Probative value of showing motive/intent outweighs any prejudice; cross‑examination can reduce prejudice	Statement is highly prejudicial and likely to confuse jury; should be excluded	Admissible — court properly balanced and found no unfair prejudice; Rule 403 exclusion not warranted
Character evidence under Rule 404 / preservation	State notes defendant did not object under Rule 404 at trial	Thomas contends the statement was impermissible character evidence	Not reviewed on merits — defendant failed to preserve 404 objection; no obvious‑error argument presented on appeal
Standard of review	Evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion	—	Abuse‑of‑discretion standard applied; no reversible error found

State v. Procive, 771 N.W.2d 259 (N.D. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Zimmerman, 524 N.W.2d 111 (N.D. 1994) (Rule 403 targets unfair prejudice, not all prejudice)
State v. Randall, 639 N.W.2d 439 (N.D. 2002) (courts should give evidence its maximum reasonable probative force and minimum reasonable prejudicial value)
May v. Sprynczynatyk, 695 N.W.2d 196 (N.D. 2005) (specificity requirement for objections at trial to preserve issues)
State v. Van Halsey, 970 N.W.2d 227 (N.D. 2022) (stating that citing specific rules when objecting satisfies preservation requirements)