A reviewing court reviews allegations of prosecutorial error de novo, considering the prosecutor's conduct in the context of the entire proceeding. State v. Roundstone, 2011 MT 227, ¶ 13, 362 Mont. 74, 261 P.3d 1009.
Our review of a district court's decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss for selective prosecution is plenary. State v. Stanko, 1998 MT 323, ¶ 49, 292 Mont. 214, 974 P.2d 1139.
A prosecutor has broad discretion in determining whether or not to prosecute. Thus, the conscious exercise of some selectivity in the enforcement of criminal laws, without more, does not constitute a violation of constitutional rights. A person asserting that his or her constitutional rights have been violated by selective prosecution must allege and prove that the selection was deliberately based on an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion or other arbitrary classification. State v. Harris, 1999 MT 115, ¶ 23, 294 Mont. 397, 983 P.2d 397.
There is a presumption of regularity supporting prosecutorial decisions. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts will presume that prosecutors have properly discharged their official duties. There must be a credible showing of different treatment of similarly situated persons in order to justify an order of selective prosecution discovery. In re Himes, 2013 Mont. LEXIS 299 at 7, 311 P.3d 443 (Mont. 2013).