State v. Vetter
2013 ND 4
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Coppage was convicted of attempted murder and aggravated assault after a trial in 2006.
- Pretrial in limine excluded prior domestic-violence incidents; during trial the State impeached Coppage with a 2004 misdemeanor domestic assault conviction.
- Coppage’s trial counsel did not seek a limiting instruction on use of the prior conviction for impeachment.
- Coppage later sought post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance, but the district court denied; on remand the court vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial.
- This Court reversed and remanded, holding issues included ineffective-assistance and prosecutorial/evidentiary concerns to be resolved under proper law and mandate.
- On remand, the district court again found ineffective assistance and ordered a new trial, but the Supreme Court concluded the court failed to apply law and fulfill its mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not requesting a limiting instruction? | Coppage argues counsel’s failure prejudiced him by allowing improper use of the prior conviction. | State contends trial strategy did not render performance deficient and prejudice was not shown. | Remand to reanalyze prejudice with correct law. |
| Was admission of Coppage's prior misdemeanor conviction proper for impeachment and/or door-opening? | Coppage contends the prior conviction was improper and prejudicial under Rule 609 and liminally opened. | State contends door-opening and impeachment purposes may justify admission if probative value outweighs prejudice. | Remand to assess admission under applicable rules and door-opening, with proper 403 weighing. |
| Did the district court correctly apply Strickland prejudice standard on remand? | Coppage claims there is a reasonable probability outcome would differ but for counsel’s errors. | State disputes that prejudice was established and argues proper analysis was not completed. | Remand to assess prejudice in light of the remaining evidence and overall trial conduct. |
| Did the district court properly address Coppage’s post-conviction counsel and mandate from Coppage II? | Coppage contends post-conviction counsel was ineffective for not raising issues; res judicata avoided. | State argues res judicata/misuse of process barred these claims. | Court must apply law-of-the-case and mandate; remand for full analysis of post-conviction-counsel effectiveness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Wright v. State, 2005 ND 217 (N. D. 2005) (mixed question of fact and law; rigorous prejudice analysis)
- Laib v. State, 2005 ND 187 (N. D. 2005) (limiting instruction and prejudice considerations)
- Stewart v. State, 2002 ND 102 (N. D. 2002) (risks of using prior convictions; need limiting instructions)
- Hernandez v. State, 2005 ND 214 (N. D. 2005) (probative value vs. prejudicial effect in evidence rulings)
- Aabrekke v. State, 2011 ND 131 (N. D. 2011) (evidence admissibility balancing and limiting instructions)
- Brumfield, 686 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2012) (opening the door and limits on impeachment evidence)
- Norton, 26 F.3d 240 (1st Cir. 1994) (evidence to contradict testimony; Rule 403 balancing)
- Gilmore, 553 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2009) (Rule 609 applicability to impeaching specific testimony)