1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 47438

JEFFREY MARSALIS,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF IDAHO,

 Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Boise, January 2020 Term

Opinion filed: February 18, 2020

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk 

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, 

Blaine County. Jonathan P. Brody, District Judge.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and 

remanded.

Silvey Law Office, Ltd., Boise, for Appellant. Greg S. Silvey argued.

Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent. Kenneth 

K. Jorgensen argued.

 _______________________________________________

MOELLER, Justice

Jeffrey Marsalis appeals the Blaine County district court’s decision summarily dismissing 

his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2009 rape conviction. In his petition, Marsalis 

alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) challenge the testimony of the

State’s expert witness regarding his and the victim’s blood alcohol levels, (2) present favorable 

eyewitness testimony at trial, and (3) properly advise him of his speedy trial rights under the 

Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). The district court summarily dismissed each of 

Marsalis’s claims. The Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part. The State

petitioned this Court for review, which we granted. For the reasons stated below, we reverse in 

part and affirm in part the district court’s decision. 
2

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 8, 2005, Marsalis and K.G., who were acquainted through their work in Sun 

Valley, went out for drinks at a bar in Ketchum. Testimony from the bartender established that 

Marsalis ordered a total of twenty beers and four shots for the two of them, and that K.G. also 

ordered a few beers for herself. All of the drinks were placed on Marsalis’s tab.

Following several hours of drinking, Marsalis and K.G. took a shuttle back to Marsalis’s

condominium in Sun Valley. The driver of the shuttle and a passenger both testified that K.G. 

was “drunk,” almost passed out during the ride back to Sun Valley, and had difficulty walking 

while entering and exiting the shuttle. K.G. testified that she had no recollection of when she left 

the bar or how she ended up at Marsalis’s residence. Upon waking later that morning, K.G. 

explained that she did not know where she was, but saw that Marsalis was in the bed next to her. 

K.G. also testified that she vomited several times that morning, experienced pain when urinating, 

and felt “bruised” in her vaginal area.

Later that night, K.G. reported to the Ketchum Police Department that she thought 

Marsalis had raped her. She also reported observing a grainy substance on the bottom of one of 

her shot glasses while at the bar with Marsalis. K.G. went to the hospital to have samples of her 

blood and urine taken. Marsalis was interviewed by the police and denied having sexual relations 

with K.G., but was nevertheless arrested for rape. The samples ultimately showed the presence of 

Marsalis’s semen. However, later testing failed to show the presence of any foreign substances

that could have incapacitated K.G., besides the alcohol she had consumed.

On April 21, 2006, a grand jury indicted Marsalis on one count of rape. The indictment

alleged that the rape occurred: “[A]t a time when K.G. was unable to resist due to an intoxicating 

substance, and/or anesthetic substance; and/or at a time when K.G. was unconscious and/or 

asleep and/or not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred. Idaho Code §§ 

18-6101 and 6104.”

While released on bail, Marsalis was convicted in Pennsylvania of a separate and 

unrelated sex offense. While he was housed in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, the 

Blaine County prosecutor filed a request for temporary custody of Marsalis pursuant to the

Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). Marsalis was returned to Idaho on August 18, 2008, 

and appeared in court the next day.
3

After a few continuances and a change of venue to Ada County, the matter proceeded to 

trial on April 20, 2009. Marsalis’s defense at trial was that K.G. consented to sexual intercourse 

with him on the night in question, but could not remember it because she had blacked out. A jury 

ultimately convicted Marsalis of rape. The district court sentenced Marsalis to an indeterminate 

life sentence with a mandatory minimum of fifteen years to run consecutive to the Pennsylvania 

sentence. Marsalis directly appealed his conviction, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 

See State v. Marsalis, 151 Idaho 872, 264 P.3d 979 (Ct. App. 2011).

Marsalis filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. In his petition, Marsalis alleged 

that he was denied the right to testify1 and the right to the effective assistance of counsel as 

guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In his first sub-claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel, Marsalis alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 

challenge the testimony of Dr. Marc LeBeau, the State’s expert witness, regarding his and K.G.’s 

blood alcohol levels. In his second sub-claim, Marsalis alleged that his trial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to call a favorable eyewitness at trial. In his final sub-claim, Marsalis 

alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of his speedy trial rights 

under the IAD.

The State moved for summary dismissal of Marsalis’s petition, which the district court 

granted. Marsalis appealed the district court’s summary dismissal of his petition. The Court of 

Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Marsalis’s second sub-claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel, i.e., that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a favorable 

eyewitness. However, it reversed and remanded the district court’s dismissal of Marsalis’s two 

remaining sub-claims, i.e., that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge Dr. LeBeau’s

testimony and for failing to inform Marsalis of his speedy trial rights under the IAD. The State

timely petitioned this Court for review, which we granted. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“When reviewing a case on petition for review from the Court of Appeals this Court 

gives due consideration to the decision reached by the Court of Appeals, but directly reviews the 

decision of the trial court.” State v. Chernobieff, 161 Idaho 537, 539, 387 P.3d 790, 792 (2016) 

(quoting State v. Lute, 150 Idaho 837, 839, 252 P.3d 1255, 1257 (2011)). “This Court is not 

merely reviewing the correctness of the Court of Appeals’ decision; rather, this Court is hearing 

 1 Marsalis subsequently withdrew this claim.
4

the matter as if the case were on direct appeal from the trial judge’s decision.” Gilpin-Grubb v. 

State, 138 Idaho 76, 79, 57 P.3d 787, 790 (2002). 

A petition for post-conviction relief is civil in nature. “Like a plaintiff in a civil action, 

the applicant for post-conviction relief must prove by a preponderance of evidence the 

allegations upon which the application for post-conviction relief is based.” Charboneau v. State, 

144 Idaho 900, 903, 174 P.3d 870, 873 (2007). Yet unlike the complaint in an ordinary civil 

action, a petition for post-conviction relief must contain more than “a short and plain statement 

of the claim” that would suffice for a complaint under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Id. 

The petition “must present or be accompanied by admissible evidence supporting its allegations, 

or the application will be subject to dismissal.” State v. Yakovac, 145 Idaho 437, 444, 180 P.3d 

476, 483 (2008) (citing I.C. § 19-4903).

Idaho Code section 19-4906 authorizes summary dismissal of a petition for postconviction relief, “either pursuant to motion of a party or upon the trial court’s own initiative.”

Id. “Summary disposition of a petition for post-conviction relief is appropriate if the applicant’s 

evidence raises no genuine issue of material fact.” Charboneau, 144 Idaho at 903, 174 P.3d at 

873 (citing I.C. § 19-4906(b), (c)). 

On review of a dismissal of a post-conviction relief application without an 

evidentiary hearing, this Court will determine whether a genuine issue of fact 

exists based on the pleadings, depositions and admissions together with any 

affidavits on file and will liberally construe the facts and reasonable inferences in 

favor of the non-moving party. A court is required to accept the petitioner’s 

unrebutted allegations as true, but need not accept the petitioner’s conclusions. 

When the alleged facts, even if true, would not entitle the applicant to relief, the 

trial court may dismiss the application without holding an evidentiary hearing. 

Allegations contained in the application are insufficient for the granting of relief 

when (1) they are clearly disproved by the record of the original proceedings, or 

(2) do not justify relief as a matter of law.

Id. (internal citations omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

On appeal, all of Marsalis’s claims involve allegations of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. “The right to counsel in criminal actions brought by the state of Idaho is guaranteed by 

the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the Idaho 

State Constitution.” Dunlap v. State, 159 Idaho 280, 295, 360 P.3d 289, 304 (2015) (quoting 

Murray v. State, 156 Idaho 159, 164, 321 P.3d 709, 714 (2014)). “[T]he right to counsel is the 

right to the effective assistance of counsel.” Id. (quoting Murray, 156 Idaho at 164, 321 P.3d at 
5

714). This Court analyzes claims for ineffective assistance of counsel under the two-prong test 

set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). “To prevail under Strickland, 

the petitioner must show: (1) ‘that counsel’s performance was deficient,’ and (2) ‘that the 

deficient performance prejudiced the defense.’ ” Dunlap, 159 Idaho at 296, 360 P.3d at 305 

(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687).

For the first prong of the Strickland test, the petitioner must show that “counsel’s 

performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Yakovac, 145 Idaho at 444, 180 

P.3d at 483 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–88). “[T]his Court does not second-guess 

strategic and tactical decisions, and such decisions cannot serve as a basis for post-conviction 

relief unless the decision is shown to have resulted from inadequate preparation, ignorance of the 

relevant law or other shortcomings capable of objective review.” Id. “There is a strong 

presumption that counsel’s performance was within the range of acceptability, particularly as to 

things like defense counsel’s choice of witnesses, manner of cross-examination, and lack of 

objections to testimony, which are generally considered to fall within the realm of tactical or 

strategic decisions.” Thumm v. State, 165 Idaho 405, ___, 447 P.3d 853, 861 (2019). 

For the second prong of the Strickland test, the petitioner must show “a reasonable 

probability that the outcome of trial would be different but for counsel’s deficient 

performance.” McKay v. State, 148 Idaho 567, 570, 225 P.3d 700, 703 (2010). “A reasonable 

probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. (quoting 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). “The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just 

conceivable.” Adamcik v. State, 163 Idaho 114, 123, 408 P.3d 474, 483 (2017) (quoting 

Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 (2011)). 

Therefore, “[i]n order to survive a motion for summary dismissal, post-conviction relief 

claims based upon ineffective assistance of counsel must establish ‘the existence of material 

issues of fact as to’ ” both Strickland prongs. State v. Dunlap, 155 Idaho 345, 383, 313 P.3d 1, 39 

(2013) (quoting Kelly v. State, 149 Idaho 517, 522, 236 P.3d 1277, 1282 (2010)). 

A. Failure to Challenge the Testimony of the State’s Expert Witnesses.

Dr. Marc LeBeau, the Unit Chief for the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, testified 

for the State regarding Marsalis’s and K.G.’s blood alcohol levels on the night of the incident. 

Dr. LeBeau did so by means of “retrograde extrapolation.” Using the “Widmark formula,” Dr. 

LeBeau estimated that K.G.’s blood alcohol level at the time Marsalis and K.G. likely had sexual 
6

intercourse was 0.28. Dr. LeBeau then testified that according to the “Dubowski chart,” K.G. 

would have been in a state of “stupor” with that blood alcohol level, which is associated with a 

loss of motor function, reduced response to stimuli, inability to stand or walk, vomiting, and, 

most importantly, impaired consciousness. Using the same process, Dr. LeBeau estimated that 

Marsalis’s blood alcohol level was 0.16 and that according to the Dubowski chart, he would have 

been in a state of “excitement,” which is associated with a loss of judgment and some memory 

impairment. Dr. LeBeau’s testimony supported the State’s allegation that Marsalis had sexual 

intercourse with K.G. when she was unconscious due to her excessive alcohol consumption. 

In his petition, Marsalis argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge 

Dr. LeBeau’s testimony. According to Marsalis, trial counsel should have challenged Dr. 

LeBeau’s testimony under Idaho Rule of Evidence 702 because “[t]here is no Idaho authority 

finding the Dubowski chart sufficiently reliable” and “estimation of blood alcohol levels using 

the Widmark formula is not scientifically reliable,” especially without a known blood alcohol 

test result to use as a baseline. Additionally, he argued that such evidence was unfairly 

prejudicial under Idaho Rule of Evidence 403. Had Dr. LeBeau’s testimony been admitted over a 

pretrial objection, Marsalis argued that trial counsel should have retained an expert witness to 

rebut Dr. LeBeau’s testimony at trial. Marsalis also argued that trial counsel should have retained 

an expert witness to explain the scientific basis behind Marsalis’s blackout defense, i.e., that 

K.G. was conscious when she consented to and willingly participated in the sexual intercourse,

but does not remember because she blacked out. In support of his claim, Marsalis presented the 

affidavits of two experts, Drs. D. Timothy Anstine and Kim Fromme. Marsalis argued that had 

trial counsel done any of these things, the outcome of the trial would have been different.

The district court summarily dismissed Marsalis’s claim because it found that trial 

counsel was not deficient for failing to object to Dr. LeBeau’s testimony prior to trial or for 

failing to retain an expert witness to rebut Dr. LeBeau’s testimony at trial. The court found that 

an objection to the testimony under Rule 702 would have been overruled because Dr. LeBeau is 

an expert and “[i]t is clearly within sound trial strategy to not attack an expert who is in fact an 

expert” and “the substance of Dr. LeBeau’s testimony is not sufficiently in question.” Similarly, 

the court found that an objection under Rule 403 would have been overruled because the 

probative value of the evidence was high and outweighed any risk of unfair prejudice to 

Marsalis. The district court also found that trial counsel was not deficient for failing to retain an 
7

expert witness to rebut Dr. LeBeau’s testimony at trial because trial counsel sufficiently crossexamined Dr. LeBeau.

On appeal, Marsalis contends that, although the district court acknowledged his Rule 702 

argument in its decision, it incorrectly interpreted his argument as challenging Dr. LeBeau as an 

expert in general. The actual claim—that Dr. LeBeau’s testimony regarding the Widmark 

formula and the Dubowski chart should have been excluded under Rule 702 because both are 

scientifically unreliable and speculative—was not addressed by the district court, nor were the 

affidavits of Drs. Anstine and Fromme. In other words, Marsalis’s Rule 702 argument was not 

based on Dr. LeBeau’s qualifications, but rather on the underlying methodologies that formed 

the basis of his trial testimony. Marsalis also contends that trial counsel’s cross-examination was 

insufficient because the jury did not learn that the Widmark formula and the Dubowski chart are 

complete speculation, and did not learn of the scientific basis behind Marsalis’s blackout 

defense. 

i. There is a genuine issue of material fact whether trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to challenge Dr. LeBeau’s testimony prior to trial. 

Initially, we hold that the record supports Marsalis’s claim that the district court did not 

accurately perceive the nature of his Rule 702 argument. In his petition, Marsalis argued that Dr. 

LeBeau’s testimony regarding his and K.G.’s respective blood alcohol levels “should not have 

been admitted under I.R.E. 702 because estimation of blood alcohol levels using the Widmark 

formula is not scientifically reliable.” In support of his claim, Marsalis submitted the affidavits of 

Drs. Anstine and Fromme. Without any reference to either affidavit, the district court summarily 

dismissed Marsalis’s claim because it found that “[i]t is clearly within sound trial strategy to not 

attack an expert who is in fact an expert.” It is apparent that the district court misunderstood

Marsalis’s claim as an attack on Dr. LeBeau’s status as an expert in general when Marsalis’s 

actual claim was an attack on the reliability of Dr. LeBeau’s underlying methodologies. When 

reviewed in the light most favorable to Marsalis, the affidavits of Drs. Anstine and Fromme call 

into question the methodologies supporting Dr. LeBeau’s testimony and potentially undermine 

the State’s theory of the case. Accordingly, we hold that there is an issue of material fact as to 

whether Dr. LeBeau’s testimony was based on reliable scientific methodologies. 

As mentioned above, in order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the 

petitioner must prove both prongs of the Strickland test, i.e., deficient performance and 

prejudice. “Where the alleged deficiency is counsel’s failure to file a motion, a conclusion that 
8

the motion, if pursued, would not have been granted by the trial court, is generally determinative 

of both prongs of the [Strickland] test.” Thumm, 165 Idaho at ___, 447 P.3d at 861–62 (quoting 

Dunlap, 155 Idaho at 385, 313 P.3d at 41). Thus, the initial inquiry is whether a pretrial motion, 

had it been made, would have been denied. A motion that would have been denied by the trial 

court ends the inquiry. If the motion should have been granted, however, “the petitioner is still 

required to overcome the presumption that the decision not to file the motion ‘was within the 

wide range of permissible discretion and trial strategy.’ ” Id. at 861 (emphasis added) (quoting 

Estrada v. State, 143 Idaho 558, 561, 149 P.3d 833, 836 (2006)). 

As suggested above, the initial inquiry is whether a pretrial motion, had it been made by 

trial counsel, would have been denied by the district court. The admissibility of expert testimony 

is governed by Rule 702, which provides, 

[a] witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, 

or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert’s 

scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to 

understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.

“[E]xpert opinion which is speculative, conclusory, or unsubstantiated by facts in the record is of 

no assistance to the jury in rendering its verdict, and therefore is inadmissible.” Coombs v. 

Curnow, 148 Idaho 129, 140, 219 P.3d 453, 464 (2009) (quoting Ryan v. Beisner, 123 Idaho 42, 

46–47, 844 P.2d 24, 28–29 (Ct. App. 1992)). “Testimony is speculative when it ‘theoriz[es] 

about a matter as to which evidence is not sufficient for certain knowledge.’ ” Id. (quoting 

Karlson v. Harris, 140 Idaho 561, 565, 97 P.3d 428, 432 (2004)). “In determining whether expert 

testimony is admissible, a court must evaluate ‘the expert’s ability to explain pertinent scientific 

principles and to apply those principles to the formulation of his or her opinion.’ ” Id. (quoting 

Ryan, 123 Idaho at 46, 844 P.2d at 28). Therefore, admissibility “depends on the validity of the 

expert’s reasoning and methodology, rather than his or her ultimate conclusion.” Id.

Here, Marsalis contends that Dr. LeBeau’s estimation of his and K.G.’s blood alcohol 

levels through retrograde extrapolation based on the Widmark formula should not have been 

admitted. He asserts that determining blood alcohol levels using the Widmark formula is

scientifically unreliable and speculative under Rule 702, especially when there is no known

blood alcohol test result to use as a baseline, as was the case here. Marsalis also contends that the 

Dubowski chart should not have been admitted under Rule 702 because it, too, is scientifically 

unreliable. 
9

“Retrograde extrapolation” is the “mathematical calculation used to estimate a person’s 

blood alcohol level at a particular point in time by working backward from the time the blood 

[sample] was taken.” State v. Dist. Ct. (Armstrong), 267 P.3d 777, 780 (Nev. 2011) (quoting 

Com. v. Senior, 744 N.E.2d 614, 619 (Mass. 2001)); see also State v. Sutliff, 97 Idaho 523, 524 

n.1, 547 P.2d 1128, 1129 n.1 (1976) (“The term extrapolation designates the process of 

determining the percentage of alcohol in the blood at a given number of hours prior to the time 

the sample was taken.”). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals provided a straightforward 

explanation of the metabolic principles utilized in estimating a person’s blood alcohol level: 

As alcohol is consumed, it passes from the stomach and intestines into the blood, 

a process referred to as absorption. When the alcohol reaches the brain and 

nervous system, the characteristic signs of intoxication begin to show. The length 

of time necessary for the alcohol to be absorbed depends on a variety of factors, 

including the presence and type of food in the stomach, the person’s gender, the 

person’s weight, the person’s age, the person’s mental state, the drinking 

pattern, the type of beverage consumed, the amount consumed, and the time 

period of alcohol consumption. At some point after drinking has ceased, the 

person’s BAC will reach a peak. After the peak, the BAC will begin to fall as 

alcohol is eliminated from the person’s body. The body eliminates alcohol 

through the liver at a slow but consistent rate. 

Mata v. State, 46 S.W.3d 902, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (internal citations omitted). 

“In 1932, Swedish chemist E.M.P. Widmark first calculated absorption and elimination 

rates in the body, and his work still represents the benchmark for other scientists’ studies today.” 

Id. “Widmark created what we know today as the ‘BAC curve,’ which represents the rise and fall 

of an individual’s BAC as his body absorbs and eliminates alcohol.” Id. In the 1970s, Kurt M. 

Dubowski, Ph.D., developed a chart that, as explained by Dr. Anstine, “attempts to correlate the 

clinical signs and symptoms caused by ethanol’s effects on the central nervous system.” Dr. 

Dubowski classified these effects into stages of acute alcoholic influence/intoxication.

Only a few jurisdictions have evaluated the reliability of retrograde extrapolation, Idaho 

not being one of them.2 In the jurisdictions that have considered it, most have held that 

retrograde extrapolation is a generally accepted scientific method, but only when it is applied 

correctly. See, e.g., State ex. rel. Montgomery v. Miller, 321 P.3d 454, 469 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014) 

 2 This Court has only addressed the relevancy of retrograde extrapolation, not its reliability. See State v. Austin, 163 

Idaho 378, 381–82, 413 P.3d 778, 781–82 (2018); State v. Robinett, 141 Idaho 110, 112–13, 106 P.3d 436, 438–39 

(2005); State v. Daniel, 132 Idaho 701, 703, 979 P.2d 103, 105 (1999), abrogated on other grounds by Verska v. 

Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 265 P.3d 502 (2011); Sutliff, 97 Idaho at 525, 547 P.2d at 1130.
10

(“[R]etrograde analysis is generally considered to be a reliable scientific discipline.”); State v. 

Vliet, 19 P.3d 42, 60 (Haw. 2001) (“We take judicial notice that Widmark’s formula is widely 

viewed as reliable.”); State v. Day, 176 P.3d 1091, 1099 (N.M. 2008) (“[T]he State can use 

scientific retrograde extrapolation evidence to prove that a BAC test taken after three hours and 

below 0.08 shows that the defendant had an actual BAC of 0.08 or higher within three hours of 

driving.”); State v. Davis, 542 S.E.2d 236, 241 (N.C. App. 2001) (“We have accepted the 

reliability of extrapolation evidence since 1985.”); State v. Trujillo, 353 P.3d 609, 617 (Or. App. 

2015) (“[We] conclude generally that retrograde extrapolation using the Widmark formula is 

scientifically valid.”); Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“[T]hough 

there is some disagreement in the scientific community, retrograde extrapolation can be reliable 

when applied correctly.”). 

To challenge the reliability of retrograde extrapolation as applied in this case, Marsalis 

presented the affidavits of Drs. Anstine and Fromme. Regarding the Widmark formula, Dr. 

Anstine, an expert on chemical testing, opined that, although the Widmark formula is generally 

accepted in blood alcohol concentration estimations and “gives very precise calculations, it does 

not automatically lead to accurate values.” Dr. Anstine explained: 

The scientific assessment of an individual’s actual BAC is very complex due to 

the wide range of both psychological and biochemical parameters unique to every 

individual. For this reason, it is not good scientific practice to rely too heavily on 

any single technique. To establish the most accurate assessment of an individual’s 

actual BAC and its corresponding effects, it is best to look at multiple 

overlapping, yet still highly subjective techniques. The use of blood or breath 

analysis in concert with Widmark calculations helps establish a more accurate 

BAC and the level of intoxication. 

When describing the issues in this particular case, Dr. Anstine explained:

[T]he state did not have blood or breath analysis, nor did it have any video or 

audio files. To my knowledge the State relied solely on Dr. LeBeau’s Widmark 

calculations that he based off a bar tab and eye witnesses to establish a possible 

level of intoxication for both Mr. Marsalis and [K.G.]. . . 

Dr. Anstine also acknowledged that Dubowski himself wrote that “it becomes clear that the 

speculative retrograde extrapolation of the BAC to any point from an experimentally determined 

value must be avoided in forensic practice, or so qualified by stated assumptions that the exercise 

becomes pointless.” See Dubowski, K.M., Alcohol Technical Reports, 1976, 5:55-63.

Regarding the Dubowski chart, Dr. Anstine opined that “[g]reat caution must be used in 

assessing a[n] individual[’]s ‘stage of alcoholic influence,’ as each individual is very unique and 
11

how different individuals are affected by alcohol has enormous ranges of influence.” Rather, 

“[t]he use of eye-witness accounts along with any available video or audio files of the individual 

in concert with the Dubowski charts helps establish the influence of the level of intoxication.” 

Dr. Anstine concluded that “the State relied too heavily on one single technique, specifically the 

Widmark formula, and from these speculative calculations made sweeping assumptions, based 

on the Dubowski chart, concerning the levels of intoxication and its influence on Mr. Marsalis 

and [K.G.].” Without knowing Marsalis’s and K.G.’s specific levels of intoxication at any point 

in time, “any discussion concerning the ‘stages of alcoholic influence’ is complete speculation.”

Dr. Fromme, a professor of clinical psychology and a specialist in alcohol-induced 

blackouts, similarly described the problems with Dr. LeBeau’s reliance on the Widmark formula 

and the Dubowski chart:

[T]here is no basis for the specific signs and symptoms associated with the BAC 

levels in the Dubowski chart. In addition, the BAC levels in each category are so 

large that they are not useful for any given person. The lower and upper limits 

differ by an average of .15 g% BAC; which is a large difference in drinking 

quantity. Most importantly, I have not been able to find any scientific basis for the 

signs and symptoms attributed to the categories of BAC in the Dubowski chart.

Based on the affidavits of Drs. Anstine and Fromme, what appears to be the bigger issue

in this case is that Dr. LeBeau attempted to make a retrograde extrapolation of blood alcohol

levels without a known blood alcohol test result to use as a baseline. This key fact distinguishes 

this case from the cases cited above that found retrograde extrapolation admissible. In each of 

those cases—all of which involved driving under the influence—the expert was performing 

retrograde extrapolation with the benefit of a known alcohol level from a breath or blood test 

taken sometime after the individual was pulled over. The expert then related the known alcohol 

level back to the time when the individual was driving. In Mata, the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals explained, 

[t]he court evaluating the reliability of a retrograde extrapolation should also 

consider (a) the length of time between the offense and the test(s) administered; 

(b) the number of tests given and the length of time between each test; and (c) 

whether, and if so, to what extent, any individual characteristics of the defendant 

were known to the expert in providing his extrapolation. These characteristics and 

behaviors might include, but are not limited to, the person’s weight and gender, 

the person’s typical drinking pattern and tolerance for alcohol, how much the 

person had to drink on the day or night in question, what the person drank, the 

duration of the drinking spree, the time of the last drink, and how much and what 

the person had to eat either before, during, or after the drinking.
12

46 S.W.3d at 916 (emphasis added).

In this case, no chemical testing of the blood or breath was ever done on Marsalis or K.G.

to determine their alcohol levels at the time in question. Therefore, Dr. LeBeau had to rely solely 

on Marsalis’s and K.G.’s physical characteristics, witness accounts of their behavior, and a bar 

tab to determine the likely number of beverages consumed. Based on this difference alone, we 

hold that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a motion to exclude Dr. LeBeau’s 

testimony would have been granted by the district court.

The next inquiry, then, is whether trial counsel’s decision to not pursue a pretrial motion 

was a strategic decision. We hold that it was not. “[T]his Court does not second-guess strategic 

and tactical decisions, and such decisions cannot serve as a basis for post-conviction relief unless 

the decision is shown to have resulted from inadequate preparation, ignorance of the relevant law 

or other shortcomings capable of objective review.” Yakovac, 145 Idaho at 444, 180 P.3d at 483.

In this case, there is no conceivable strategic justification for trial counsel’s failure to pursue a 

pretrial motion to exclude Dr. LeBeau’s testimony, especially because trial counsel barely 

questioned Dr. LeBeau during cross-examination, thereby leaving the jury with Dr. LeBeau’s 

mostly unrebutted testimony. On the other hand, had trial counsel filed a pretrial motion to 

exclude Dr. LeBeau’s testimony, and had the district court granted the motion, Dr. LeBeau’s 

testimony would have been excluded and the only evidence the jury would have had to 

determine K.G.’s level of intoxication was (1) a bar tab providing the probable number of 

beverages consumed, (2) K.G’s testimony describing the night of the incident and her symptoms, 

(3) Marsalis’s statements describing the night of the incident, and (4) eyewitness testimony from 

the shuttle ride back to Sun Valley. Thus, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether 

trial counsel was deficient for failing to challenge the scientific basis for Dr. LeBeau’s testimony 

prior to trial.

Under Strickland, the final inquiry is whether trial counsel’s alleged deficiency 

prejudiced Marsalis. See Baldwin v. State, 145 Idaho 148, 157, 177 P.3d 362, 371 (2008)

(requiring the petitioner to prove both deficiency and prejudice when asserting trial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to file a motion). In order to prove prejudice, Marsalis must show that there 

is “a reasonable probability that the outcome of trial would be different but for counsel’s 

deficient performance.” McKay, 148 Idaho at 570, 225 P.3d at 703. A reasonable probability 

means “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. (quoting 
13

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). In his petition, Marsalis argued that he was prejudiced by trial 

counsel’s deficiency because there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted 

him absent Dr. LeBeau’s testimony. Marsalis’s argument has some merit. It was the State’s 

burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that K.G. was unconscious or too intoxicated to 

consent to sexual intercourse with Marsalis. Without an expert opining that K.G. was likely 

unconscious when Marsalis had sexual intercourse with her because she had an estimated blood 

alcohol level of 0.28, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the outcome of the 

trial would have been different.

In sum, there is a material question of fact as to whether trial counsel was deficient for 

failing to challenge Dr. LeBeau’s testimony prior to trial, and as to whether there is a reasonable 

probability of a different result had Dr. LeBeau’s testimony been challenged and excluded. 

Therefore, the district court erred in granting summary dismissal without affording Marsalis an 

evidentiary hearing.

ii. There is a genuine issue of material fact whether trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to retain an expert witness to rebut Dr. LeBeau’s testimony at trial and to 

explain the scientific basis behind Marsalis’s blackout defense.

Marsalis argues that, had Dr. LeBeau’s testimony been admitted over objection, trial 

counsel should have retained an expert witness to rebut his testimony at trial and was ineffective 

for failing to do so. This is not merely a hypothetical concern because Dr. LeBeau did in fact 

testify at trial. Marsalis also argues that trial counsel should have retained an expert witness to 

explain the scientific basis behind his blackout defense. According to Marsalis, had the jury 

heard that Dr. LeBeau’s conclusions were derived from unreliable methods, and had the jury 

heard about blackouts and their causes and effects, there is a reasonable probability that the jury 

would have acquitted him. We hold that there is an issue of material fact as to whether trial 

counsel was ineffective for failing to retain an expert to address these matters. “The decision of 

what witnesses to call ‘is an area where we will not second guess counsel without evidence of 

inadequate preparation, ignorance of the relevant law, or other shortcomings capable of objective 

evaluation.’ ” State v. Payne, 146 Idaho 548, 563, 199 P.3d 123, 138 (2008) (quoting State v. 

Larkin, 102 Idaho 231, 234, 628 P.2d 1065, 1068 (1981)). 

To justify an evidentiary hearing in a post-conviction relief proceeding, it 

is incumbent on the applicant to tender written statements from potential 

witnesses who are able to give testimony themselves as to facts within their 

knowledge. It is not enough to simply allege that an expert should have been 
14

secured without providing, through affidavits, evidence of the substance of the 

expert’s testimony. Absent an affidavit from the expert explaining what he or she 

would have testified to, or some other verifiable information about what the 

substance of the expert’s testimony would have been, a[n] applicant fails to raise a 

genuine issue of material fact.

Self v. State, 145 Idaho 578, 581, 181 P.3d 504, 507 (Ct. App. 2007) (internal citations omitted). 

As to Marsalis’s first argument, i.e., that trial counsel should have retained an expert 

witness to rebut Dr. LeBeau’s testimony, the State argued, and the district court found, that trial 

counsel was not deficient because it chose to address the potential weaknesses in Dr. LeBeau’s 

testimony through cross-examination. The State also argues on appeal that, “because the 

proposed defense experts would only have impeached Dr. LeBeau’s methodology, but not his 

conclusions, and because his conclusions are otherwise supported by the evidence, Marsalis did 

not show a likelihood that presenting the proposed experts would have affected the outcome of 

the trial.” The State’s argument is incorrect for several reasons. First, the cross-examination of 

Dr. LeBeau was ineffective because trial counsel did not question the scientific basis underlying

Dr. LeBeau’s testimony. Rather, trial counsel merely confirmed with Dr. LeBeau that (1) alcohol 

affects different people differently, (2) alcohol affects the same people differently, and (3) the 

more accurate the information, the more accurate the results will be when using the Widmark 

formula. On the other hand, the affidavits of Drs. Anstine and Fromme question the scientific 

basis underlying Dr. LeBeau’s testimony, explaining that the Widmark formula and the 

Dubowski chart are scientifically unreliable and speculative. Second, calling into question Dr. 

LeBeau’s methodologies necessarily calls into question the conclusions he reaches based on 

those methodologies, which is the precise issue Marsalis raises. Therefore, we hold that there is a 

genuine issue of material fact as to whether trial counsel was deficient for failing to retain a 

rebuttal expert witness. 

As to Marsalis’s second argument, i.e., that trial counsel should have retained an expert 

witness to explain the scientific basis behind his blackout defense, neither the State in its motion 

for summary dismissal nor the district court in its decision addressed this argument. However, 

the State on appeal concedes that “[t]he only proposed testimony that does not just attempt to 

impeach Dr. LeBeau, but arguably is relevant to the facts of the case, is Dr. Fromme’s testimony 

about alcohol-induced blackouts.” Dr. Fromme explained in her affidavit that “[a]lcohol-induced 

blackouts are defined as amnesia for all or part of a drinking episode.” Dr. Fromme also 

explained that, “[w]hile in a blackout, a person is able to engage in a range of complex activities, 
15

such as . . . having sexual intercourse, but they are simply not forming memories for those 

events.” Dr. Fromme concluded that K.G. was experiencing blackouts the night she and Marsalis 

had sexual intercourse. Dr. Fromme’s report supports Marsalis’s defense that K.G. was 

conscious during the sexual intercourse, but does not remember consenting to it because she was 

experiencing a blackout.

The State argues that the proposed testimony from Dr. Fromme is entirely consistent with 

Dr. LeBeau’s testimony at trial, citing the trial transcript for support. However, the State’s 

reference to the trial transcript refers to Dr. LeBeau’s testimony discussing amnesia caused by

CNS depressants3 in general. There is no reference to any testimony specifically discussing 

alcohol-induced blackouts or amnesia. Accordingly, we hold that there is a genuine issue of 

material fact as to whether trial counsel was deficient for failing to retain an expert witness to 

discuss the scientific basis behind Marsalis’s blackout defense. 

Similarly, we hold there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Marsalis was 

prejudiced by trial counsel’s alleged deficiencies. Marsalis maintains that, had the jury heard 

from an expert witness that Dr. LeBeau’s testimony regarding the Widmark formula and the 

Dubowski chart were unreliable, and had a jury heard from an expert witness regarding 

blackouts, there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the trial would have been different.

Marsalis has presented sufficient evidence for us to hold that there is a genuine issue of material 

fact regarding prejudice. First, if the jury agreed with the defense’s expert that Dr. LeBeau’s 

testimony was unreliable and speculative, they would have had no “scientific evidence” proving 

K.G.’s level of intoxication. Instead, the jury would have been left with a bar tab, Marsalis’s and 

K.G.’s statements, and eyewitness testimony. Second, had trial counsel retained an expert 

witness to discredit Dr. LeBeau’s testimony that K.G. was in a “stupor” and unconscious, the 

State’s theory of the case would have been severely weakened. Dr. LeBeau himself testified at 

trial that “[w]e would not be here if this were a matter of just not remembering.” Thus, having an 

expert witness testify that K.G. was conscious during the sexual intercourse with Marsalis, but 

merely did not remember it because she was experiencing a blackout, would have undermined 

Dr. LeBeau’s testimony and, ultimately, the State’s theory of the case. Therefore, there is a 

genuine issue of material fact as to whether Marsalis was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to 

 3 CNS depressants, or central nervous system depressants, are drugs that slow normal brain functioning. 47 No. 6 

Crim. Law Bulletin ART 6.
16

retain an expert witness to rebut Dr. LeBeau’s testimony and to explain the scientific basis

behind Marsalis’s blackout defense. 

In sum, because there is a material question of fact as to whether trial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to challenge Dr. LeBeau’s testimony and for failing to retain an expert 

witness to explain Marsalis’s blackout defense, the district court erred in summarily dismissing 

this claim without reviewing the substance of the expert affidavits submitted by Marsalis. 

Looking at the evidence in a light most favorable to Marsalis, the nonmoving party, we conclude 

that Marsalis was entitled to present his evidence at an evidentiary hearing to establish whether 

trial counsel was deficient and whether he was prejudiced by that deficiency. Therefore, we 

reverse and remand this claim back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine 

the same. 

B. Failure to Present Favorable Eyewitness Testimony.

At trial, the State called two eyewitnesses: the driver of the shuttle and a passenger in the 

shuttle. These witnesses testified that K.G. “was drunk, almost passed out during the cab ride and 

that she had trouble walking before she entered the cab and when she exited the cab in Sun 

Valley.” Marsalis’s trial counsel did not call any witnesses to rebut the testimony of the State’s 

witnesses. 

In his petition, Marsalis alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present

John Hampton, another passenger in the shuttle, at trial. According to Marsalis, there was no 

tactical reason for trial counsel not to call Hampton because he would have testified that K.G. 

was not forced into the shuttle, that there was no argument between her and Marsalis, and that 

when she and Marsalis arrived at their destination neither appeared to have any trouble getting 

out of the shuttle or walking after exiting the shuttle. Marsalis argued that, had trial counsel 

called Hampton, there is a reasonable probability there would have been a different result 

because the testimony of the State’s witnesses would have been contradicted. 

The district court summarily dismissed Marsalis’s claim, finding that

[a] witness who wasn’t paying attention and had been drinking that night is not a 

reliable witness at trial and it is objectively reasonable to avoid calling this person 

as a witness. This becomes even more true when the only sober person in the car 

directly contradicts the testimony of the drunk witness who wasn’t paying 

attention. 

Accordingly, the district court held that Hampton’s testimony “would have had no effect on the 

outcome of the case.”
17

On appeal, Marsalis contends that the district court erred in summarily dismissing his 

claim because it improperly found that failing to call the eyewitness was objectively reasonable 

without first addressing the Declaration of [Attorney] Charles F. Peterson, wherein Peterson 

declared that a reasonably prudent trial counsel would have called Hampton at trial. We hold that 

the district court did not err in summarily dismissing this claim. 

“The decision of what witnesses to call ‘is an area where we will not second guess 

counsel without evidence of inadequate preparation, ignorance of the relevant law, or other 

shortcomings capable of objective evaluation.’ ” Payne, 146 Idaho at 563, 199 P.3d at 138 

(quoting Larkin, 102 Idaho at 234, 628 P.2d at 1068). “In most cases, the court can determine 

whether defense counsel’s challenged acts or omissions amounted to deficient performance 

without expert opinion from another lawyer.” Taylor v. State, 145 Idaho 866, 871, 187 P.3d 

1241, 1246 (Ct. App. 2008).

Here, in the Declaration of [Attorney] Charles F. Peterson, Peterson alleges that trial 

counsel was ineffective for failing to call “a critical witness’s testimony at trial.” Peterson states

that Hampton would have countered the State’s assertion that K.G. was “incapacitated and 

incapable of standing on her own” and that K.G. “almost passed out during the cab ride and had 

difficulty walking before she entered the cab and after she exited.” Peterson’s assertions appear 

to be based on an inaccurate description of Hampton’s anticipated testimony.

In an interview with a private investigator, Hampton explained that he took the same

shuttle back to Sun Valley as Marsalis and K.G. When asked by the investigator whether he

heard any kind of argument between Marsalis and K.G., he explained that he did not. When

asked whether Marsalis was physically supporting K.G. as they exited the shuttle, he explained

that he was unsure because he was not paying attention to them. Finally, when asked whether he 

had “a visual on them” or whether he saw them “walking somewhere,” he explained that he did 

not. Hampton also gave a statement to the Sun Valley Police Department that he did not 

remember any details when Marsalis and K.G. were dropped off. The only testimony that may 

have contradicted the State’s eyewitnesses’ testimony is Hampton’s statement that he did not see 

Marsalis forcing K.G. into the shuttle. However, that still leaves uncontradicted the testimony 

that K.G. was drunk, almost passed out during the shuttle ride, and had trouble exiting the 

shuttle. Marsalis greatly overstates the impact of such weak evidence on the jury. Therefore, 

even with the support of Peterson’s declaration, Marsalis failed to establish a genuine issue of 
18

material fact as to whether trial counsel’s decision not to call Hampton was due to inadequate 

preparation, ignorance of the law, or some other shortcoming. Therefore, we uphold the district 

court’s finding that Marsalis failed to satisfy the first prong of the Strickland test requiring that 

he show deficiency in trial counsel’s performance and, therefore, we need not address the second 

prong of the test, i.e., prejudice. See Hollon v. State, 132 Idaho 573, 578, 976 P.2d 927, 932 

(1999).

C. Failure to Advise Marsalis of his Speedy Trial Rights under the IAD.

While Marsalis was released on bail, he was convicted in Pennsylvania of a separate and 

unrelated sex offense. The Blaine County prosecutor initiated transfer proceedings to get 

Marsalis back to Idaho to stand trial. The temporary custody documentation that was sent to the 

Pennsylvania prison housing Marsalis stated that the Blaine County prosecutor intended to bring 

Marsalis to trial “within the time specified in Article IV(c) of the [Interstate Agreement on 

Detainers (IAD)].”4 Article IV(c) provides that “trial shall be commenced within one hundred 

twenty (120) days of the arrival of the prisoner in the receiving state, but for good cause shown 

in open court, the prisoner or his counsel being present, the court having jurisdiction of the 

matter may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance,” otherwise the indictment shall be 

dismissed with prejudice. I.C. § 19-5001(d)(3), (5). Marsalis was returned to Idaho on August 

18, 2008, and appeared in court the next day. Accordingly, the State was required to bring 

Marsalis to trial by December 17, 2008.

Nevertheless, Marsalis’s trial was initially set to commence on January 5, 2009, well 

beyond the 120-day requirement set out in IAD. It is not clear why the initial trial setting did not 

conform with the requirements of the IAD. At a scheduling conference on December 1, 2008, 

held in the judge’s chambers with Marsalis and counsel present, there was some discussion 

concerning speedy trial, the prosecutor believing he had 180 days to try Marsalis, see I.C. § 19-

5001(c)(1),5 rather than 120 days. The parties also discussed continuing the trial so the defense 

could get a change of venue and DNA results. On December 5, 2008, the parties stipulated to a 

continuance. On December 8, 2008, the district court issued an order continuing the jury trial. On 

 4 The Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), an interstate compact authorized by Congress and codified in Idaho 

at Idaho Code sections 19-5001 through -5008, “is a compact entered into by 48 States, the United States, and the 

District of Columbia to establish procedures for resolution of one State’s outstanding charges against a prisoner of 

another State.” New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110, 111 (2000). 5 Section 19-5001(c)(1) provides that when the prisoner initiates the transfer proceedings, “he shall be brought to 

trial within one hundred eighty (180) days” after he has delivered written notice of his request for final disposition. 

The State initiated the transfer proceedings so this provision did not apply. 
19

December 9, 2008, Marsalis waived his speedy trial rights “guaranteed by the Idaho and United 

States Constitutions and Idaho Statutory Law.” Finally, on December 12, 2008, the district court 

entered an order granting a change of venue to Ada County. Ultimately, the trial commenced on

April 20, 2009, 124 days past the deadline.

In his petition, Marsalis argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him 

of his speedy trial rights under the IAD. Because trial counsel failed to inform him of his rights, 

Marsalis argued that his waiver of those rights was not informed and knowing. “As a result of the 

trial not being held within 120 days of [Marsalis’s] return to Idaho and there being no valid 

waiver of that right, it is reasonabl[y] probable that the case against [him] would have been 

dismissed for a violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.”

In its motion for summary dismissal, the State asked the district court to dismiss 

Marsalis’s claim because Marsalis waived his speedy trial rights under the IAD to receive 

additional discovery material and a change of venue. The State also argued there was “good 

cause” for the continuance and that, even if trial counsel incorrectly informed Marsalis that 

speedy trial was 180 days rather than 120 days, Marsalis “failed to show prejudice.”

The district court summarily dismissed Marsalis’s claim because it found Marsalis’s trial 

counsel permissibly waived Marsalis’s statutory speedy trial rights by agreeing to a continuance

beyond the 120 days, citing New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110, 115 (2000) (explaining that counsel 

could waive his client’s statutory right to a speedy trial because “[s]cheduling matters are plainly 

among those for which agreement by counsel generally controls.”). The district court also found 

“good cause” on the record: “delay was needed to ensure an unbiased jury.”6 Finally, the district 

court found that Marsalis “would have been more severely prejudiced by a failure to continue the 

trial” than he was by trial counsel’s alleged failure to know and advise him of the statutorily 

imposed deadline for trial.

On appeal, Marsalis contends that the district court erred in dismissing this claim without 

first providing him with twenty days’ notice of proposed dismissal as required by Idaho Code 

section 19-4906. According to Marsalis, the district court was required to provide him with

notice because it dismissed the claim on grounds not asserted by the State in its motion for 

summary dismissal. Specifically, the district court dismissed the claim, not because Marsalis 

waived his speedy trial rights, as argued by the State, but because trial counsel waived Marsalis’s 

 6 The trial court was referencing the time needed to transfer venue to Ada County.
20

speedy trial rights for him, as found for the first time by the district court. Thus, Marsalis asks 

that we reverse and remand the district court’s dismissal so Marsalis can have twenty days to 

respond to the court’s grounds for dismissal. The State contends that the district court was not 

required to provide notice because it relied, in part, on the grounds asserted by the State in its 

motion for summary dismissal. According to the State, the court’s decision is “slightly, but not 

materially, different.” Thus, the State asks that we affirm the district court’s dismissal. We hold 

that the district court should have provided Marsalis with twenty days’ notice to respond to its 

proposed dismissal. 

Idaho Code section 19-4906 permits summary dismissal of a post-conviction petition, 

either pursuant to motion of a party or upon the district court’s own initiative:

(b) When a court is satisfied, on the basis of the application, the answer or motion, 

and the record, that the applicant is not entitled to post-conviction relief and no 

purpose would be served by any further proceedings, it may indicate to the parties 

its intention to dismiss the application and its reasons for so doing. The 

applicant shall be given an opportunity to reply within 20 days to the proposed 

dismissal. . . .

(c) The court may grant a motion by either party for summary disposition of the 

application when it appears from the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and admissions and agreements of fact, together with any 

affidavits submitted, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving 

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

I.C. § 19-4906(b), (c) (emphasis added).

“Where the state has filed a motion for summary disposition, but the [trial] court 

dismisses the application on grounds different from those asserted in the state’s motion, it does 

so on its own initiative and the court must provide twenty days notice.” Saykhamchone v. State, 

127 Idaho 319, 322, 900 P.2d 795, 798 (1995). “When a trial court summarily dismisses an 

application for post-conviction relief based in part on the arguments presented by the State, this 

is sufficient to meet the notice requirements.” Kelly, 149 Idaho at 523, 236 P.3d at 1283. In 

Workman v. State, we clarified that the “overlap” between the reasoning in the district court’s 

decision and the State’s motion for summary dismissal must be “significant.” 144 Idaho 518, 

524, 164 P.3d 798, 804 (2007). The district court’s reasoning for dismissal cannot be “so 

different in kind as to transform its decision into a sua sponte dismissal.” Id. 

Here, the district court’s dismissal of Marsalis’s claim was based primarily on grounds 

not raised by the State in its motion for summary dismissal. The State asserted that Marsalis 
21

waived his speedy trial rights under the IAD to receive additional discovery materials and a 

change of venue. The State also briefly mentioned that there was “good cause” for the waiver 

and that Marsalis “failed to show prejudice.” The district court, on the other hand, did not 

address whether Marsalis knowingly waived his statutory speedy trial rights because it found

instead that trial counsel waived his speedy trial rights for him, citing Hill for the first time.

Moreover, although the district court mentioned “good cause” and prejudice in its decision, it did 

so only in passing. The court briefly concluded that there was “good cause” for the continuance 

because delay was needed to ensure an unbiased jury and that Marsalis “would have been more 

severely prejudiced” if the continuance had not been granted. Absent from the district court’s 

reasoning is the necessary “overlap” with the State’s motion that would allow this Court to 

uphold the district court’s decision without first providing Marsalis with notice. Therefore, we 

remand this claim back to the district court so the court can provide Marsalis with twenty days’ 

notice of its grounds for dismissal of this particular claim pursuant to section 19-4906(b).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the Court reverses in part and affirms in part the 

district court’s decision summarily dismissing Marsalis’s petition for post-conviction relief. We 

affirm the district court’s summary dismissal of Marsalis’s claim that trial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to call an allegedly favorable eyewitness at trial. However, we reverse and

remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on Marsalis’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective 

for failing to challenge the underlying methodologies supporting the State’s expert witness’s 

testimony and for failing to present an expert witness to discuss the scientific basis behind 

Marsalis’s blackout defense. We also remand the case back to the district court so it can provide

Marsalis with twenty days’ notice to respond to the court’s grounds for dismissing Marsalis’s

claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of his speedy trial rights under 

the IAD. 

Chief Justice BURDICK, and Justices BEVAN, STEGNER and J. Pro Tem WALTERS 

CONCUR.