State v. Thorsteinson, 924 N.W.2d 376

In Nov. 2016 a two‑year‑old in Austin Thorsteinson’s care suffered catastrophic head injuries (brain bleed, skull surgery, stroke, permanent impairment). Thorsteinson was the last person alone with the child and said the injury was an accidental fall while he was holding the child.
Thorsteinson was charged with felony child abuse under N.D.C.C. § 14‑09‑22; first trial ended in a hung jury; retrial resulted in conviction and a 20‑year sentence (10 years suspended).
Before trial the State filed an N.D.R.Ev. 404(b) notice seeking to admit three prior incidents: (1) July 2016 head injury to the child while in Thorsteinson’s care (photos later excluded as unduly prejudicial), (2) Sept. 2016 domestic‑violence video showing Thorsteinson angry/jealous, and (3) Sept. 2016 bruising of the child’s buttocks from physical discipline.
Thorsteinson objected that the prior‑acts evidence was offered for impermissible propensity purposes; the district court admitted most of the evidence after applying the three‑step 404(b) analysis and limiting instructions.
During deliberations the jury asked for clarification on the definition of “recklessly.” Thorsteinson requested a supplemental definition; the court declined and directed the jury to use the given legal definitions and plain meanings. Jury convicted; defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior bad acts under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b)	Prior acts were admissible to show motive, intent, absence of mistake/accident, and to give context; probative value outweighs prejudice	Prior acts were offered to show propensity and were unduly prejudicial, not a proper 404(b) purpose	Court affirmed admission (photos of July injury excluded as inflammatory); district court did not abuse discretion after three‑step analysis and Rule 403 balancing
Adequacy of jury instruction defining “recklessly”	Definitions given were legally sufficient and jury should use them and plain meanings	Requested supplemental instruction ("a high degree of risk of which the actor is aware and consciously disregards") was necessary for clarity	Court affirmed; instructions as a whole adequately informed jurors and supplemental instruction was not required

State v. Aabrekke, 800 N.W.2d 284 (2011) (warns against admitting other‑acts evidence to prove propensity; outlines limiting principles)
State v. Schmeets, 772 N.W.2d 623 (2009) (sets out three‑step 404(b) admissibility analysis)
State v. Ramsey, 692 N.W.2d 498 (2005) (cautions on prejudice from other‑acts evidence)
State v. Alvarado, 757 N.W.2d 570 (2008) (other‑acts evidence may provide a more complete story by context and timing)
State v. Buckley, 792 N.W.2d 518 (2010) (other‑acts admissible to show absence of mistake/accident in child abuse cases)
State v. Peltier, 878 N.W.2d 68 (2016) (standard of review: admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Wilson, 676 N.W.2d 98 (2004) (jury instructions reviewed de novo; instructions considered as a whole)
State v. Huber, 555 N.W.2d 791 (1996) (reversal for erroneous jury instructions only if they affect a substantial right)