STATE v. REDMAN (2026)

[¶1] Larry Daniel Smith Redman appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted him of terrorizing with a dangerous weapon, reckless endangerment, and domestic violence. On appeal, Smith Redman argues the district court abused its discretion by excluding testimony regarding the victim's prior violent statements and conduct. He argues he “was unable to present evidence that directly affected his state of mind and therefore his substantial right to a fair trial was denied.” We summarily affirm the criminal judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶2] Admissibility of evidence of the character of a crime victim is governed by N.D.R.Ev. 404. The allowable methods of proving character are provided in N.D.R.Ev. 405. This Court has explained that “[e]vidence of the violent nature of a victim” may be admissible when the defendant claims self-defense. State v. Chisholm, 2012 ND 147, ¶¶ 12-13, 818 N.W.2d 707. One “potential use of specific instances of a victim's prior conduct is to show the defendant's state of mind.” Id. ¶ 13. “Thus, if the defendant had actual knowledge of specific instances of violent conduct by the victim, evidence of those matters may be relevant to demonstrate that he acted reasonably in defending himself.” Id.

[¶3] “The district court exercises broad discretion in determining whether to admit or exclude evidence, and its determination will be reversed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” Chisholm, 2012 ND 147, ¶ 10, 818 N.W.2d 707. “A district court abuses its discretion in evidentiary rulings when it acts arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably, or it misinterprets or misapplies the law.” Id.

[¶4] At trial, Smith Redman attempted to testify regarding prior violent statements made by a victim and the victim's conduct surrounding those statements. The State objected to the testimony, arguing it was irrelevant and inadmissible under N.D.R.Ev. 404(a) and 404(b). The district court thoroughly examined Smith Redman's intention with the evidence. Smith Redman did not cite any rule of evidence in support of his argument. The court excluded the testimony because it was not relevant. After review of the record, we conclude the court did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably. The court did not misinterpret or misapply the law. The court did not abuse its discretion by excluding testimony regarding the victim's prior violent statements or conduct.

[¶5] We summarily affirm the criminal judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Per Curiam.

[¶6] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Jon J. Jensen Douglas A. Bahr Mark A. Friese