State v. Frank D. Marks, 328 P.3d 539

Marks was convicted of three counts of lewd conduct with a minor based on abuse of his two biological daughters and a stepdaughter; a prior mistrial occurred before the second trial where he was found guilty; he received three concurrent life sentences with 30 years fixed and challenged them via a Rule 35 motion; the district court excluded part of a defense medical expert’s testimony and admitted testimony by another daughter about uncharged misconduct; on appeal, he challenged the evidentiary rulings and the sentencing.
The state alleged the acts occurred in Marks’s home, and the victims were abused repeatedly over time; the medical records were reviewed by Dr. Guertin who opined on witness credibility based on inconsistencies in testimony.
The district court treated Guertin’s report as offering two types of conclusions: (a) credibility assessments and (b) medical observations, and excluded the credibility portion as improper, while excluding the speculative, hymen-observation opinion.
The state sought to admit B.K.M.’s testimony under Rule 404(b) to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, and plan, with a limiting instruction; Marks argued it was propensity evidence and unfairly prejudicial.
Appellate review affirmed the trial court’s rulings, held the sentencing was not an abuse of discretion, and affirmed the Rule 35 denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of defense medical expert testimony	Marks contends exclusion violated Rule 702 and right to present a defense.	State argues the testimony was speculative and not helpful to the jury.	No abuse of discretion; testimony excluded as speculative and unhelpful.
Admission of uncharged misconduct by another daughter under Rule 404(b)	State argues relevant to motive, opportunity, and plan; supports credibility.	Marks argues it is improper propensity evidence and unfairly prejudicial.	Properly admitted with limiting instruction; not an abuse of discretion.
Sentencing not excessive or improperly punitive for asserting innocence	State contends sentence reasonable given severity and lack of rehabilitation prospects.	Marks argues punishment for exercising right to trial and lack of responsibility shown.	Not an abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed.
Denial of Rule 35 motion for leniency	State and court treated victims’ views and trauma as factors; appropriate under statute.	Marks alleges constitutional violation by not adequately considering victims’ wishes.	No reversible error; denial affirmed.
Rule 35 standard and rehabilitation factors applied	State.	Marks claims misapplication of rehabilitation potential due to innocence:**	Court properly applied standard and affirmed denial of reduction.

State v. Joy, 155 Idaho 1, 304 P.3d 276 (2013) (relevance and admissibility standards for evidence; Rule 404(b) analysis guidance)
State v. Grist, 147 Idaho 49, 205 P.3d 1185 (2009) (necessity of applying Rule 404(b) balancing test; imperfect correlation with common scheme)
Gomez, 151 Idaho 146, 254 P.3d 47 (2011) (admission of uncharged acts to show opportunity when defense challenges venue/occurrence)
State v. Parmer, 147 Idaho 210, 207 P.3d 186 (2009) (deferral to trial court on sufficiency of other-acts evidence; appellate review for abuse of discretion)
Weeks v. E. Idaho Health Servs., 143 Idaho 834, 153 P.3d 1180 (2007) (admissibility of expert testimony; need to be helpful, not speculative)
State v. Kellis, 148 Idaho 812, 229 P.3d 1174 (2010) (Constitutional right to present defense; right not to be penalized for contesting government proof)
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (1982) (standards for evaluating sentencing, deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the public)