State v. McDonald

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed Ramah Irene McDonald’s felony conviction for assault on a peace officer. The Court held that the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument, including statements concerning witness credibility, did not warrant plain-error review or reversal when considered in context. Justice Cotter dissented, concluding that the prosecutor improperly vouched for witnesses and that the close evidentiary case required a new trial.

Holdings

1. The prosecutor's comments, viewed in the context of the entire argument, did not constitute misconduct so serious as to require the Montana Supreme Court to exercise plain-error review to protect the fundamental fairness or integrity of the proceeding.
2. A prosecutor may comment on the evidence, conflicts and contradictions in testimony, witness credibility as submitted to the jury, and inferences supported by the evidence, but may not improperly substitute the prosecutor's personal opinion for the jury's credibility determination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prosecutor's comments during closing argument constituted prosecutorial misconduct amounting to plain error requiring reversal of McDonald's conviction.

Disposition

affirmed