McDaniel v. Commonwealth
2013 Ky. LEXIS 645
| Ky. | 2013Background
- A Kenton Circuit Court jury found McDaniel guilty of two counts of first-degree assault and of being a second-degree persistent felony offender (PFO).
- He was sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment after the jury’s verdict and the court’s sentencing decision.
- The crimes arose from an altercation in which McDaniel shot Boysie Washington and Tanya Henderson; Washington and Henderson’s 12-year-old daughter Jane was involved in a prior school fight linked to the incident.
- Washington sustained multiple gunshot wounds; Henderson sustained a gunshot wound to the hand with a small scar remaining.
- McDaniel appealed as a matter of right, challenging trial-court rulings on juror-for-cause strikes, limiting instructions, expert witness treatment, other-crimes evidence, and the sufficiency of proof of serious physical injury.
- The Court affirmed the Washington conviction, reversed Henderson’s conviction, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to strike for-cause jurors | McDaniel contends jurors 63, 94, and 120 should have been struck for cause. | The trial court’s failure to strike these jurors for cause violated a fair trial and forced excessive use of peremptories. | No reversible error; no palpable error because none of the challenged jurors sat on the jury and defendant exhausted no requisite strikes. |
| Limiting instructions for testimony | Certain testimony should have been limited to explaining prior inconsistent statements. | Limiting instructions were not requested; palpable-error review still applied. | No reversible error for Washington testimony; threat-evidence credibility testimony deemed non-prejudicial; Warner testimony not shown to have altered outcome. |
| Dr. Borzada as fact witness testifying as expert | Trial improperly treated Borzada as fact witness while letting him give expert opinions. | Dr. Borzada’s background supported his expertise; Daubert standards did not require formal expert designation. | Abuse of discretion in designating him a fact witness; but harmless error as expert opinions were not outcome-determinative. |
| Admission of evidence of other crimes | Questioning McDaniel about felon-in-possession and weapon disposal implied other-crimes evidence in violation of KRE 404(b) and 404(c). | Evidence related to McDaniel’s firearm possession rebutted his portrayal as law-abiding and disposal evidence suggested consciousness of guilt; notice requirements not triggered here. | No reversible error; admission found permissible as rebuttal and consciousness-of-guilt evidence; 404(c) not violated; cross-examination evidence deemed admissible. |
| Sufficiency of proof of serious physical injury to Henderson | Henderson suffered a serious physical injury meeting the statutory standard. | Henderson’s injury did not prove serious physical injury; due process requires quashing the Henderson conviction. | Conviction for Henderson reversed for lack of proof of serious physical injury; Washington conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brewer v. Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 343 (Ky. 2006) (palpable-error standard governs unpreserved errors affecting substantial rights)
- Parker v. Commonwealth, 291 S.W.3d 647 (Ky. 2009) (threat evidence admissibility limited by relevance to credibility and risk of prejudice)
- Anderson v. Commonwealth, 352 S.W.3d 577 (Ky. 2011) (serious physical injury requires more than minor disfigurement; expert medical proof helpful but not necessary)
- Parson v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 775 (Ky. 2004) (proximate test for prolonged impairment of health; prolonged pain can establish serious physical injury)
- Hocker v. Commonwealth, 865 S.W.2d 323 (Ky. 1993) (serious physical injury analyzed by severity including loss or impairment of function)
- Luttrell v. Commonwealth, 554 S.W.2d 75 (Ky. 1977) (scope of serious physical injury includes substantial risk of death or prolonged effects)
- Benham v. Commonwealth, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1991) (directed-verdict standard; appellate review deferential but guards against mere scintilla evidence)
- Acosta v. Commonwealth, 391 S.W.3d 809 (Ky. 2013) (directed verdict review; weigh evidence in light of elements and defenses; 'clearly unreasonable' standard)