Pre-Trial Plea Offer, Disputed Testimony, and Sentencing Decisions Raise Questions in 2012 Idaho Case

​

The pre-trial conference in a high-profile Idaho criminal case was held on January 30, 2012, setting in motion a series of courtroom events that the defendant now argues reflected systemic failures, disputed testimony, and missed defense opportunities.

​

Plea Offer and Trial Decision

Before the hearing began, defense attorney Tony Geddes relayed what he described as the State’s first and only plea offer: 10 years fixed, plus an unspecified indeterminate term, in exchange for a guilty plea to manslaughter and failure to report a body. In return, prosecutors would drop charges of arson and grand theft.

According to the defendant, he rejected the offer, maintaining that accepting it would have required him to admit to crimes he says he did not commit. He recalls Geddes warning him, “This is Idaho. Life is on the table,” a statement he interpreted as pressure to accept the deal rather than proceed to trial.

The case moved forward.

​

Pre-Trial Rulings and Domestic Violence Framing

During pre-trial proceedings, the defense objected to characterizations of the scene that described it as “an arson, where a woman was found between a mattress and box spring.” Prosecutors argued that a prior incident in Montana should be admitted, suggesting a pattern of domestic violence.

Judge Deborah A. Bail ruled that most of a police recording related to that earlier encounter would be inadmissible. However, during discussion, she stated, “I think this is a case of domestic violence,” a comment the defendant now cites as evidence the court had formed a theory early in the proceedings.

​

Jury Selection and Opening Statements

Jury selection took place on February 15, 2012. The defendant later claimed he felt his legal team was underprepared, stating that he was asked to assist in evaluating potential jurors despite having no experience in jury selection.

Opening statements followed. Prosecutor Whitney Faulkner outlined the State’s theory that the defendant committed the charged crimes. Defense attorney Danica Comstock countered that the State would fail to prove its case, noting that there was no definitive cause of death and that the fire scene may have been disturbed by first responders. She told jurors they would hear from a defense fire expert who would challenge the prosecution’s arson theory.

​

Key Witness Testimony

The State began calling witnesses on February 16.

Ken Davis, the victim’s father, testified about prior interactions with the defendant, including a contentious dinner involving a financial dispute. Davis told jurors he felt threatened during that encounter and later provided his daughter with money. He also testified that he received a text message instructing him to call police to her home on the day of her death.

The defendant disputes that account, asserting that phone records showed continued calls between him and the victim during the timeframe in question and that no such text message appeared in the records provided at trial. He further claims his attorneys failed to introduce audio and video recordings he says would have contradicted parts of Davis’s testimony.

Morrissey Gage, the victim’s estranged mother, testified about a ring allegedly tied to a financial dispute and described limited contact with her daughter. The defense has since argued that her testimony contained inconsistencies and omitted context about their strained relationship.

Prosecutors also introduced testimony from Montana law enforcement and a victim advocate regarding prior allegations in Bozeman. The defense contends this evidence created an impression of prior violence despite not resulting in a conviction.

​

Fire Scene Discrepancies

Testimony from firefighters James “Jim” Rabbitt and John Suter became a focal point of the trial.

Rabbitt testified that he and Suter removed a mattress from the room after extinguishing a small fire and that he did not notice a body beneath it. Suter, however, offered a differing account, stating that Rabbitt had already lifted the mattress when he arrived to assist.

The defense now alleges that the discrepancies were significant and that prosecutors failed to disclose differences in the firefighters’ accounts in advance. The defendant also claims that Suter later expressed discomfort with how group depositions were conducted and with the handling of his testimony.

Prosecutors have not publicly responded to those claims.

​

Defense Strategy Shift

After the State rested on February 24, the defense moved for acquittal under Idaho Criminal Rule 29(b). The motion was denied. Although defense counsel had previously indicated they would present expert testimony challenging the arson theory, fire expert Dennis Jones was ultimately not called to testify.

The defendant maintains that the abrupt decision undermined the defense’s strategy. He also did not testify.

Closing arguments concluded, and the jury deliberated for three days.

​

Verdict and Sentencing

The jury acquitted the defendant of murder but convicted him of manslaughter, arson, and grand theft.

At sentencing, Judge Bail referenced the defendant’s limited participation in the presentence investigation process. According to court transcripts, she stated she lacked sufficient information about his rehabilitation potential and imposed a 54-year sentence.

The defendant argues that the sentence was excessive and influenced by allegations from an unrelated Montana case. He also claims irregularities in the preparation and review of the presentence report and asserts that certain mitigating information was introduced too late in the process to have meaningful impact.

​

Ongoing Legal Challenges

More than a decade later, the defendant continues to challenge his conviction and sentence through post-conviction proceedings, including a petition for habeas corpus. He alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial bias.

Court records show that appeals have been filed and adjudicated over the years, though relief has not been granted to date.

​

The case remains a subject of dispute, with the defendant asserting that critical evidence was overlooked or mishandled, and that key testimony was inconsistent or incomplete. Prosecutors and the court have previously maintained that the conviction followed proper legal procedures and jury findings based on the evidence presented at trial.