State v. James A.

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions arising from four consolidated cases. It held that joinder was proper because evidence from the sexual-assault cases and the threatening and disorderly-conduct cases was relevant and more probative than prejudicial in the other cases, and because the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice. The court declined to review the challenge to the limitation on testimony about the defendant’s prior convictions because the record did not establish why he chose not to testify or what testimony he intended to give. Chief Justice Robinson, joined by Justice McDonald and in part by Justice Ecker, concurred in the judgment but would have found both challenged trial rulings erroneous and harmless.