McGuire v. Commonwealth
368 S.W.3d 100
| Ky. | 2012Background
- Appellant Brian McGuire killed coworker Donato at Leestown Middle School; Donato suffered multiple gunshot wounds.
- McGuire defended against murder by claiming extreme emotional distress (EED) due to bullying by Donato.
- Commonwealth argued motive was jealousy and envy due to Donato’s financial advantages; personal hardships were highlighted.
- Trial resulted in acquittal of murder and conviction for first-degree manslaughter and unlawful possession of a weapon on school property; sentence totaled 20 years for manslaughter and 5 years concurrent for the weapons charge.
- School system officials and counsel interfered with defense witnesses, prompting motions and letters banning defense investigators from district property.
- Weighing at issue, the court held any interference was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the guilt-phase outcome and sentencing results.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to present a defense violated by third-party interference | McGuire | McGuire | Assumed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; affirmed |
| Admission of personal-life stress evidence in Commonwealth’s case-in-chief | McGuire | McGuire | Evidence properly admitted to support motive; not reversible error |
| Victim impact testimony by a friend in penalty phase | McGuire | McGuire | Error but not manifest injustice; no reversal |
| Exclusion of father’s testimony in penalty phase | McGuire | McGuire | No manifest injustice; court did not abuse discretion under KRE 615 |
| Replay of testimony outside defendant’s presence | McGuire | McGuire | Palpable error not established; no different result |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard for denial of a constitutional right)
- United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300 (U.S. 1973) (right to interview witnesses predates Sixth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Peters, 353 S.W.3d 592 (Ky.2011) (right to interview witnesses; RCr/Rule implications)
- Radford v. Lovelace, 212 S.W.3d 72 (Ky.2006) (witnesses may refuse interview; limits on compelled discovery)
- Neal v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 843 (Ky.2003) (witness may speak with any party; not limited by counsel)
- Mills v. Commonwealth, 44 S.W.3d 366 (Ky.2001) (distinguished; admissibility and timing of evidence in trial)
- Ladriere v. Commonwealth, 329 S.W.3d 278 (Ky.2010) (palpable error standard for sentencing)