State v. James A.

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that the threatening and disorderly conduct charges were properly joined with the sexual-assault-related charges because evidence from each group of cases was relevant and more probative than prejudicial in the other. The court also declined to review the defendant’s evidentiary claim concerning testimony about his prior felony convictions because the record did not establish why he chose not to testify or what testimony he intended to give. A concurrence in the judgment would have found both trial-court rulings erroneous but harmless, reasoning that the sexual-assault evidence was unduly prejudicial to the threatening charges and that the defendant should have been allowed to describe his prior convictions as nonsexual without naming them.