State v. Cheryl and Edwin Criswell, 305 P.3d 760

Cheryl and Edwin Criswell operated a large cat "rescue" and relocated from Idaho to northwest Montana in 2010, ultimately housing ~116 cats in two camper trailers.
Neighbors and local rescue volunteers observed unsanitary, overcrowded conditions; many cats were sick, dehydrated, underweight, or injured. Volunteers and animal-control officers attempted assistance in December 2010.
The State charged each Criswell with one count of aggravated animal cruelty (ten or more animals) for conduct between Dec. 17–25, 2010; cases were consolidated for trial.
The Criswells asserted their conduct was justified by desperate circumstances (bad weather, lack of resources) and denied intent to harm; they also sought to exclude prior Idaho evidence under Rule 404(b).
At trial the district court admitted limited 404(b)-type evidence from the Idaho operation for knowledge/absence of mistake; jury convicted both defendants; sentences and restitution were imposed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that defendants acted "without justification" in subjecting ≥10 animals to mistreatment (Dec. 17–25)	State: testimony and vet opinions show overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, medical harm caused by confinement and lack of adequate food/water; defendants knew risks and failed to obtain/secure adequate care — no justification.	Criswells: severe weather and lack of resources justified confinement and delayed rescue; county assumed control part of the charged period; conduct was not criminal but a result of circumstance.	Court affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, a rational juror could find defendants knowingly and without justification subjected animals to mistreatment during charged period.
Denial of mistrial for prosecutor's inflammatory closing remarks (labels: "squatters," "freeloaders," implication they were "run out" of Idaho; marijuana comment)	Criswells: remarks were improper, inflammatory, and prejudicial; curative instruction insufficient—mistrial required.	State: remarks were responsive to defense and not sufficiently prejudicial; jury admonition and context cured any effect.	Court held district court did not abuse discretion: comments were improper but not shown to have prejudiced fairness of trial given instructions, context, and overwhelming evidence.

State v. Rosling, 180 P.3d 1102 (Mont. 2008) (standard for denying motion to dismiss for insufficiency)
State v. Swann, 160 P.3d 511 (Mont. 2007) (de novo review of sufficiency-of-evidence rulings)
State v. Torres, 299 P.3d 804 (Mont. 2013) (appellate standard for sufficiency to support verdict)
State v. Lindberg, 196 P.3d 1252 (Mont. 2008) (two-step test for prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument)
State v. Gladue, 972 P.2d 827 (Mont. 1999) (mistrial abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Dubois, 134 P.3d 82 (Mont. 2006) (trial court’s discretion in assessing improper argument and prejudice)
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (prosecutor must not "strike foul ones" in argument)