State of Montana v. Dawn Marie Jensen

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed Dawn Marie Jensen’s conviction for criminal distribution of dangerous drugs. The court held that an improper prosecutorial comment concerning Jensen’s acceptance of consequences did not prejudice her because the objection was sustained and the jury was properly instructed. The court declined to apply plain-error review to other unobjected-to prosecutorial comments regarding reasonable doubt, common sense, and witness credibility.

Holdings

1. The prosecutor's statement that Jensen refused to accept her consequences was improper, but it did not prejudice Jensen's right to a fair trial because the comment was largely irrelevant, the evidence and trial focused on whether she committed the crime, and the district court's admonishment and jury instructions had a curative effect.
2. The court declined to exercise plain-error review because the comments concerning reasonable doubt, common sense, and the informant's credibility did not implicate Jensen's fundamental constitutional rights or cast unfairness into the trial.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial, and Jensen's conviction was affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prosecutor's statement that Jensen refused to accept her consequences was improper and prejudicial.
2. Whether the prosecutor's unobjected-to comments concerning reasonable doubt, common sense, and the informant's credibility warranted plain-error review or reversal.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a new trial based on the prosecutor's closing arguments.

Disposition

affirmed