404(b) and 408 because its probative value was outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice. There are two answers to this contention. First, the defense attorney never asked Judge Thompson to consider the issue of probative value versus potential for unfair prejudice. The defense attorney argued only that the challenged evidence was strictly inadmissible-because (according to the defense attorney) the defense had never opened the door to this evidence by asserting that no sexual assault ever occurred. Second, even though this challenged evi-denee tended to show that Douglas had sexually assaulted KI., the jurors were already well aware of this allegation, and they had heard much of the evidence supporting it. The whole basis of the witness tampering charge was that Douglas h 3) (<HOLDING>). That being said, there was no plain error in
holding district court could not properly take judicial notice of findings of another court establishing nature of salary dispute in question holding that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of domestic restraining orders issued against a childs father for the purpose of establishing that the father had committed acts of violence in the past holding in termination of parental rights case that trial court erred in taking judicial notice of evidence before him in guardianship hearing in same case recognizing judicial immunity for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction holding that the circuit court erred in terminating a hearing on a domestic violence injunction without allowing the petitioner the opportunity to present evidence that facts met the requirements of section 74128