Marr v. State

Citation163 Idaho 33,408 P.3d 31
Decision Date20 December 2017
Docket NumberDocket No. 45206
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Parties John Joseph MARR, Petitioner-Respondent, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent-Appellant.

163 Idaho 33
408 P.3d 31

John Joseph MARR, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
STATE of Idaho, Respondent-Appellant.

Docket No. 45206

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, November 2017 Term.

Filed: December 20, 2017


Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for appellant. Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General argued.

Ferguson Durham, PLLC, Boise, for respondent. Craig H. Durham argued.

BURDICK, Chief Justice.

163 Idaho 34

The State of Idaho appeals the district court's order granting John Joseph Marr's petition for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Marr was arrested and charged with felony attempted strangulation and domestic battery with a traumatic injury. A jury found Marr not guilty as to the attempted strangulation but guilty of domestic battery with a traumatic injury. Marr's direct appeal was unsuccessful and he filed a petition for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel at both trial and at sentencing. After a post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the district court found Marr's attorney was ineffective at trial for failing to discover and admit evidence of the victim's reputation for belligerence and aggression when intoxicated and for failing to elicit testimony from the victim about whether she had consumed alcohol before testifying. The district court granted Marr's petition for post-conviction relief as to trial, vacating Marr's conviction. The district court denied Marr's petition for post-conviction relief as to sentencing. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of post-conviction relief. We granted Marr's petition for review, and we affirm the district

408 P.3d 33
163 Idaho 35

court's order granting Marr's petition for post-conviction relief.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case involves a physical altercation between John Joseph Marr (Marr) and his wife of one week, Marci Jones (Jones) that took place during the hours between September 24, 2011, and September 25, 2011. Following the altercation, Marr called the police. Officer Alexander of the Coeur d'Alene Police Department interviewed Jones and noticed she had a swollen lip and face, bruises on her neck, chest, and arm, and bloodshot eyes. Jones admitted she had been drinking alcohol all day. Jones told Officer Alexander that she and Marr had been arguing because Jones stated she wanted to leave the house, and Marr responded by grabbing her neck and throwing her on the bed. Jones stated Marr then choked her until she passed out and that she bit Marr until he let go of her. Later, Jones again stated she wanted to leave, and Marr responded by showing Jones a closed fist, asking if she "wanted one of these." Jones stated Marr then punched her in the face, after which she told Marr to call the police and he did.

When Officer Alexander interviewed Marr, he heard a different version of what had happened. Marr stated Jones had been drinking alcohol all day, which was common, and that Jones had become belligerent. Marr asked Jones to turn down the music which sent Jones into a rage. In an attempt to restrain Jones and protect himself, Marr grabbed Jones by the wrist and pulled her onto the bed with him. Marr held Jones down in a modified choke hold to restrain her, until she bit Marr's arm. Marr then held Jones down so she could not hit him. At some point, Marr called Jones's daughter and then the police. Marr denied punching Jones and claimed both his and Jones's injuries occurred while he was restraining her and protecting himself.

Marr was arrested and charged with attempted strangulation and domestic battery with a traumatic injury. A preliminary hearing was held on October 6, 2011, with Jones serving as the State's only witness. Jones testified to a different version of events than she had told police. Jones did not recall arguing with Marr or Marr asking her to turn down the music. Jones stated Marr choked her off and on for a couple hours, and his watch caused her bruising. Jones never mentioned Marr punching her in the face. Lisa Chesebro, who represented Marr at the hearing, asked Jones about the inconsistencies between what she told officers and what she testified to. Jones stated she did not have a good memory, but what she told officers would have been the truth. When Ms. Chesebro continued to press Jones, Jones changed her story multiple times. Jones stated she did not recall Marr asking if she "wanted one of these" while displaying a closed fist. Jones also stated she did not ask Marr to call the cops; rather, Marr had stated he called the cops because Jones bit him.

At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the judge bound Marr over to face the two felony charges in district court. Sarah Sears of the Kootenai County Public Defender's Office was appointed to represent Marr. At trial, Jones's testimony was similar to her story at the preliminary hearing, though there were slight changes. Additionally, Jones mumbled and appeared shaky on the stand, and Marr told Ms. Sears that Jones appeared to be intoxicated. However, Ms. Sears failed to get a response from Jones about whether Jones had been drinking alcohol before testifying. Judge Hosack instructed the jury to consider self-defense as a potential defense to the charges. The jury found Marr not guilty of attempted strangulation, but guilty of domestic battery with a traumatic injury.

Judge John T. Mitchell sentenced Marr to the maximum ten years in prison with eight years fixed. Marr appealed, arguing his sentence was excessive and that his counsel was ineffective. The Idaho Court of Appeals upheld the sentence and did not address Marr's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, stating he should pursue it through a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Marr , No. 39918, 2013 WL 6497834, at *2–3 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2013).

408 P.3d 34
163 Idaho 36

Marr then filed for post-conviction relief in district court, claiming his counsel was ineffective at trial and at sentencing for several reasons, including failing to discover and admit evidence relevant to Marr's claim of self-defense and failing to cross-examine Jones about whether she had consumed alcohol before testifying. At a post-conviction evidentiary hearing, Marr's attorney, Craig Durham, questioned Ms. Sears about her representation of Marr at trial, specifically asking if she had investigated Jones's reputation for aggressiveness and belligerence when intoxicated. Ms. Sears stated she was aware of Jones's criminal history, but did not interview any witnesses concerning Jones's reputation for being belligerent or aggressive when intoxicated. Ms. Sears stated, "I can't say that I made a tactical decision to not include that evidence because I don't think I knew about it." She went on to say, "[I]t wouldn't have been hard for me to get it if I had just, um, tried to get it. So I think I should have had that piece of information. ... I think I missed that."1

At the post-conviction hearing, Marr presented evidence of what witnesses would have testified to about Jones's character and reputation for violence when intoxicated if Ms. Sears had called them at trial. Idaho State Trooper Donald Moore testified as to Jones's reputation in the Bonners Ferry community and his opinion of Jones when she is intoxicated. Trooper Moore based his statements on his encounters with Jones when he worked for the Bonners Ferry Police Department. Trooper Moore testified that in his encounters with Jones she was belligerent and physically resistant when intoxicated, and that she had a reputation for being difficult to deal with when intoxicated. The district court found that Trooper Moore's testimony that Jones was belligerent and physically resistant when intoxicated would have been admissible at Marr's trial.

The district court concluded that Marr's trial counsel was ineffective. First, the district court concluded Marr's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Jones's reputation for aggression when intoxicated and then subsequently for failing to call Trooper Moore to testify about Jones's character, as it would have supported Marr's claim that Jones attacked Marr, and that Marr had acted in self-defense. Second, the district court concluded Marr's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to elicit a response from Jones about whether she had been drinking before testifying, as it undermined Jones's credibility. The district court granted Marr's petition for post-conviction relief as to the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, but denied it as to sentencing. The State appealed, and the Idaho Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of post-conviction relief. This Court granted Marr's timely petition for review.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Whether counsel was ineffective when she failed to investigate Jones's character for aggression and belligerence when intoxicated, and then subsequently failed to discover and admit Trooper Moore's testimony about Jones's character and reputation.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When addressing a petition for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Godwin
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 14, 2019
    ...permits a defendant to present evidence of a victim's propensity for violence for certain purposes. I.R.E 404 ; Marr v. State , 163 Idaho 33, 37, 408 P.3d 31, 35 (2017) ; State v. Hernandez , 133 Idaho 576, 584, 990 P.2d 742, 750 (Ct. App. 1999). However, Rule 405 limits the form of such ev......
  • Thompson v. State
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 4, 2019
    ...show that (1) counsel's representation was deficient; and (2) counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defendant." Marr v. State , 163 Idaho 33, ––––, 408 P.3d 31, 35 (2017) (citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688–92, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ). "To show coun......
  • Jackson v. State
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • June 8, 2018
    ...must establish that the inadequacies complained of would have made a difference in the outcome of trial. Marr v. State, 163 Idaho 33, 39-40, 408 P.3d 31, 37-38 (2017); Thomas, 145 Idaho at 769, 185 P.3d at 925; Lake v. State, 126 Idaho 333, 335-36, 882 P.2d 988, 990-91 (Ct. App. 1994). It i......
  • Sanchez v. State
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 2020
    ...during the evidentiary hearing. Sanchez argues the affidavit supported his claim of actual innocence and, pursuant to Marr v. State, 163 Idaho 33, 408 P.3d 31 (2017), the district court may consider affidavits that are not admitted at the evidentiary hearing. In response, the State contends......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT