City of Bismarck v. McCormick, 2012 ND 53

Montano was convicted by jury of possession with intent to deliver and delivery of marijuana.
A confidential informant Monroe arranged a controlled purchase of marijuana from Montano and Nava in Minot, with Whitebull as intermediary.
Police seized marijuana and purchase money from Monroe, and later found cash and drugs in Whitebull’s apartment and in a bag
During closing, defense criticized the use of informants; during rebuttal, the State allegedly commented on Black people; objection sustained by the court.
No curative instruction or sua sponte remedial action was issued; the jury returned guilty verdicts.
Montano appeals asserting due process/fair-trial violations and insufficient evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor misconduct and sanctions	State argues comment did not violate due process	Montano contends comment requires sanctions to protect fairness	No obvious error; sanctions not required
Due process standard for prosecutorial misconduct	Comment minimal impact on jurors' fairness	Comment prejudicially taints trial	Comment not prejudicial enough for due process violation
Sufficiency of evidence	Evidence supports Montano’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt	Wholly impeached witnesses undermine conviction	Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions

State v. Vondal, 2011 ND 186 (ND 2011) (obvious error standard for prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Kruckenberg, 2008 ND 212 (ND 2008) (prejudice standard for prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. McKinney, 518 N.W.2d 696 (ND 1994) (objection and review limitations for preserved errors)
State v. Evans, 1999 ND 70 (ND 1999) (obvious error review in prosecutorial context)
State v. Spath, 1998 ND 133 (ND 1998) (due process review for prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Grant, 2009 ND 210 (ND 2009) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
Buehner v. Hoeven, 228 N.W.2d 893 (ND 1975) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency evidence)