State v. Montano, 813 N.W.2d 612

Montano was convicted by jury of possession with intent to deliver marijuana and delivery of marijuana.
The State used an informant, Monroe, to arrange a controlled purchase; marijuana was later recovered with purchase money traced to Montano’s apartment.
Whitebull acted as a middle person; marijuana and money were found in a bag at Whitebull’s apartment linked to Montano via access and possession.
During trial, defense questioned the informant’s credibility and the use of informants; the State argued race-based implications in rebuttal argument.
Defense objected to a racially charged comment during rebuttal, the court sustained the objection but did not issue sanctions or curative instructions.
Montano appeals on both the supposed due process/right-to-fair-trial violation and on sufficiency of the evidence, asking for reversal and remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor misconduct on rebuttal
Montano alleges racial comment violated due process.	State contends comment was improper but not prejudicial.	No obvious error; prejudice minimal.
Duty to sanction for improper argument
Failure to sanction violated Montano’s rights.	No explicit sanction required; no gross misconduct.	Sanctions not required; not constitutional error.
Sufficiency of the evidence	Monroe and Whitebull impeachment undermines reliability.	Evidence adequate even if impeached.	Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions.

State v. Vondal, 2011 ND 186 (ND 2011) (pretrial/trial misconduct and due process framework)
State v. Kruckenberg, 758 N.W.2d 427 (ND 2008) (prosecutorial misconduct - prejudice standard)
State v. McKinney, 518 N.W.2d 696 (ND 1994) (obvious error standard when no objection to curative instruction)
State v. Evans, 593 N.W.2d 336 (ND 1999) (prejudice analysis in obvious error review)