State v. James A. — concurring

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the defendant’s convictions should be affirmed but reaches different conclusions on both appellate claims. It would find that joinder of the threatening and sexual assault cases was improper because the sexual-assault evidence was more prejudicial than probative in the threatening case, but that the error was harmless. It also would find an abuse of discretion in denying the defendant permission to testify that his prior convictions were nonsexual without allowing the state to identify them, but concludes that this evidentiary error was harmless. Chief Justice Robinson authored the concurrence, joined by Justice McDonald and, as to part II, Justice Ecker.