Brandon C. McGuire, Appellant, vs. State Of Missouri, Respondent.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
II. The Trial During voir dire, defense counsel asked a general question to the venire, and Juror Tanika Hale ("Juror Hale"), who was an accountant, eventually responded following another juror's answer: [Defense counsel]: Okay. Now, in the box, I anticipate there is going to be some very graphic testimony about things of a sexual nature, and I address this to everyone in the box at this time and to the people in the front chairs. Will any of you have any difficulty in sitting and listening to testimony from a young woman concerning matters of a graphic sexual nature? And the reason I'm asking because some people will, you know, can get turned off and don't want to listen, and if you do, if it's going to bother you, and I anticipate there may be pictures, if it's going to bother you, now is the time to let it be known. [Defense counsel]: ... Juror Number 601. [Juror 60 l]: Yes. I would have a problem with that. The visual aids, I would have a problem. [Defense counsel]: So you would think that you may be turned off to the point where you may not even listen to the testimony? [Juror 601]: If it's graphic like that, it might be a stopping point for me. [Defense counsel]: So you would think that you may be turned off to the point where you may not even listen to the testimony? [Juror 601]: If it's graphic like that, it might be a stopping point for me. [Defense counsel]: I understand. Anyone else in the box that feels as Juror 601 feels, that there could be a point where the testimony or the pictures and something that's put forth is of such a nature that it just turns you off and you can't focus on that? Anyone in the pews to my right. Juror 810, please stand. [Juror Hale]: I couldn't do it. [Defense counsel]: You couldn't do it. [Juror Hale]: No. [Emphasis added.] No additional questions were asked of Juror Hale about her ability to weigh evidence of a graphic sexual nature. Neither party moved to strike Juror Hale, and she served on petit jury. 4 were inflicted near the time ofdeath, but while she was alive. Swabs collected from K.J. revealed a mixture ofmale and female DNA, with the female DNA matching K.J. and the male DNA matching McGuire. With regard to H.T., McGuire again admitted to having consensual sex with her shortly before the crime occurred. McGuire also testified that, after having sex with H.T., he noticed that his hand and genitals contained blood, and he subsequently pushed H.T. out of the car. H.T. identified McGuire as her attacker, and several other witnesses described injuries to H.T. and the death ofH.T. 's unborn baby. The evidence to support McGuire's convictions was strong. We recognize the Johnson court emphasized that the State had not alluded to the prior arrests in closing argument. Here, the prosecutor briefly mentioned McGuire's evasive testimony about his prior arrests in closing arguments, suggesting that McGuire was lying. While this fact may slightly increase the prejudice to McGuire, we remain unconvinced that such prejudice undermined the jury's verdict given the other evidence of McGuire's guilt. Branyon also suppo1ts our finding of no Strickland prejudice. 304 S.W.3d at 167. In Branyon, defense counsel also opened the door to evidence of the defendant's prior atTests by asking him if he had ever been in trouble. Id. On cross-examination, the defendant admitted a prior arrest for what he recalled as "assault of a child." Id. A majority ofthe court affirmed the motion court's finding ofno Strickland prejudice. Id. at 169. In doing so, the majority noted that the State did not emphasize the arrest-related evidence and it was not alluded to again at trial. Id. Further, there was "significant credible evidence" of the defendant's guilt at trial. Id. The dissenting opinion would have found that Strickland prejudice did occur. Id. at 179. The dissent stressed that the case, for child molestation, boiled down to a "he said/she said" scenario for the jury, and that the evidence was not terribly strong. Id. at 175. The dissent also noted that 16
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
