State v. Chacano, 826 N.W.2d 294

Chacano was convicted by jury of two counts of attempted murder in North Dakota.
Trial included an audio recording of the courtroom scuffle and evidence of a loaded gun and ammo brought into the courtroom.
As jurors were leaving after verdicts, Chacano produced a handgun and a scuffle ensued; Byers and Molbert restrained him.
The State charged Chacano with attempted murder of Byers, Molbert, and the twelve jurors.
Chacano testified he did not intend to harm anyone and claimed the gun was to deal with a predator and not in the courtroom with intent to kill.
The jury found him guilty of attempted murder of Byers and Molbert and not guilty of attempted murder of the jurors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of the audio recording	Recording was highly relevant to motive/intent and timing.	Recording was not relevant or was unduly prejudicial under Rule 403.	Recording properly admitted; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
Sufficiency of the evidence on attempted murder of Byers and Molbert	Evidence showed intent or knowledge and substantial steps toward killing Byers and Molbert.	Defendant lacked intent to kill and actions were not a substantial step.	Sufficient evidence supported convictions; jurors could reasonably infer guilt.
Prosecutor's closing argument as obvious error	Isolated statement that defendant’s testimony is a lie could prejudice the defense.	Statement was improper but not clearly prejudicial or violative of substantial rights.	Not obvious error; one isolated improper comment did not necessitate reversal.
Impact of jury instructions on alleged closing argument prejudice	Court’s instructions did not cure the prejudice from the closing comment.	Instructions adequately warned that closing arguments are not evidence.	Instructions mitigated any potential prejudice; no reversible error.

State v. Cain, 2011 ND 213 (ND, 2011) (relevance and balancing under Rule 403)
State v. Jaster, 2004 ND 223 (ND, 2004) (broad discretion in evidentiary matters; abuse unless arbitrary or capricious)
State v. Wiest, 2001 ND 150 (ND, 2001) (standard for admitting or excluding evidence)
State v. Schmeets, 2009 ND 163 (ND, 2009) (burden on appellant to show error; standard for abuse of discretion)
State v. Clark, 2012 ND 135 (ND, 2012) (obvious error standard and cure by cautionary instructions)
State v. Randall, 2002 ND 16 (ND, 2002) (admissibility balanced with prejudice; use of limiting instructions)
State v. Kirkpatrick, 2012 ND 229 (ND, 2012) (sufficiency review—jury may draw inference from evidence)
State v. Bethke, 2009 ND 47 (ND, 2009) (harmlessness analysis for prosecutorial error)
State v. Pena Garcia, 2012 ND 11 (ND, 2012) (jury presumed to follow court instructions)
State v. Flohr, 310 N.W.2d 735 (ND, 1981) (prosecutor closing remarks not to be treated as evidence)
State v. Klose, 2003 ND 39 (ND, 2003) (gruesome evidence balanced under Rule 403)
State v. Rivet, 2008 ND 145 (ND, 2008) (prosecutor’s closing argument can be improper but may be mitigated)