State v. Morsette, 309 P.3d 978

Defendant Isaiah Morsette, manager of a Chinook restaurant, was accused of sexual intercourse without consent with a 15-year-old employee after buying alcohol and renting a motel room; victim testified she blacked out and woke to intercourse.
Morsette admitted inappropriate conduct with teenage employees but denied going to the motel or having sex with the victim; he testified to an alibi that he drove to Havre and stayed with a friend.
Arrested August 2009; multiple pretrial delays produced 662 days between arrest and trial; some delay attributed to defendant actions (retaining counsel, continuances, mistrial from illness, second evaluation).
At trial the State introduced evidence of Morsette’s prior inappropriate contacts with other young employees; the court gave a limiting (other-acts) instruction.
Defense raised: speedy-trial motions (denied), ineffective assistance for failing to object to other-acts evidence (claimed), and due-process claim based on prosecutor’s cross-examination implying defendant did not tell police his alibi after arrest (Doyle issue).
Jury convicted in June 2011; sentenced to 35 years (10 suspended). Montana Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy trial — denial?	State: delays were largely institutional or caused by defendant; no prejudice shown.	Morsette: 662-day delay violated right to speedy trial; prejudiced by pretrial incarceration and conditions.	Affirmed denial of dismissal; court found many delays attributable to defendant, institutional delay not heavily weighted, and no presumptive prejudice.
Ineffective assistance — failure to object to other-acts evidence?	State: counsel reasonably chose tactic to admit impropriety to preserve credibility and argue innocence of crime; objections could highlight misconduct.	Morsette: counsel should have objected; evidence was prejudicial and inadmissible.	Counsel not ineffective; trial strategy to admit impropriety but deny criminality was reasonable and supported by limiting instructions.
Due process — use of post-arrest silence (Doyle) in cross-exam?	State: questioning attacked veracity/recent fabrication of alibi, not defendant’s silence or Miranda invocation.	Morsette: prosecutor’s questions implied he failed to tell officers his alibi after arrest, violating Doyle.	No Doyle violation; questions addressed credibility and possible fabrication, not punishment for silence; mistrial denial was not irrational.
Cumulative error — reversible?	Morsette: multiple errors cumulatively denied fair trial.	State: no individual errors; no cumulative error.	No errors found; cumulative-error claim rejected.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (prosecutorial use of post-arrest silence after Miranda warnings violates due process)
State v. Godfrey, 322 Mont. 254 (95 P.3d 166) (cross-examination attacking story as recent fabrication distinguished from improper comment on silence)
State v. Wagner, 352 Mont. 1 (215 P.3d 20) (application of Doyle and plain-error review where prosecution repeatedly used invocation/silence)
State v. Ariegwe, 338 Mont. 442 (167 P.3d 815) (framework for speedy-trial analysis and factors to weigh)