523 S.W.3d 556
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Brandon McGuire was tried for crimes arising from two separate sexual-violence incidents (K.J. — a 16‑year‑old homicide; H.T. — a brutal assault that killed her unborn child). DNA linked McGuire to both scenes; he was convicted on seven of eight counts and sentenced to consecutive lengthy terms including life without parole.
- McGuire testified at trial, admitting to consensual sex with both victims shortly before their injuries; his testimony opened impeachment with prior convictions.
- Voir dire included juror Tanika Hale stating she “couldn’t” listen to graphic sexual testimony, but defense did not challenge her and she served on the jury.
- At trial, limited evidence of non‑conviction prior arrests was admitted after defense questioning opened the door; the court restricted the State to number and dates of arrests.
- Post‑conviction (Rule 29.15) McGuire alleged 15 ineffective‑assistance claims; on appeal he contested five: (1) failure to strike Juror Hale, (2) failure to request MAI‑CR 3d 310.10 limiting use of convictions, (3) opening the door to arrest history, (4) failure to request an alibi instruction, and (5) failure to impeach H.T. for bias/leniency. The motion court denied relief and this opinion affirms.
Issues
| Issue | McGuire's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to strike Juror Hale for cause or use peremptory | Juror Hale said she “couldn’t” hear graphic sexual testimony; defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging an unqualified juror | Counsel reasonably strategized to keep Hale (demographics, meticulousness) and prioritized peremptories for other jurors | No ineffective assistance — trial strategy credible; no clear error denying relief |
| 2. Failure to request MAI‑CR 3d 310.10 (conviction‑use instruction) | Counsel should have requested instruction limiting jury to use prior convictions only for impeachment | Counsel reasonably declined to avoid emphasizing prior convictions (sound strategy per precedent) | No ineffective assistance — reasonable strategy; claim rejected |
| 3. Defense question “ever been in trouble?” opened door to non‑conviction arrest dates | That question allowed admission of additional arrest dates and prejudiced the jury; counsel was ineffective | Any prejudice was minimal: State was already permitted to introduce convictions; arrest evidence was limited to dates; strong guilt evidence | No Strickland prejudice — limited impact and strong evidentiary support for convictions |
| 4. Failure to request alibi instruction | Testimony from McGuire and wife supported alibi; missing instruction prejudiced the defense | Jury already instructed on burden to prove presence beyond a reasonable doubt; alibi instruction unnecessary and alibi evidence weak/timelines uncertain | No prejudice — alibi instruction not required and trial counsel argued alibi to jury; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| 5. Failure to impeach H.T. about pending charges/leniency expectation | Counsel should have impeached H.T. to show motive to testify favorably for State | Counsel reasonably pursued other impeachment (drug use, prostitution, inconsistencies) and avoided alienating jury by attacking a brutal victim | No ineffective assistance — strategic choice; impeachment risked jury sympathy and was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test — performance and prejudice)
- State v. Shurn, 866 S.W.2d 447 (Mo. banc 1993) (trial strategy to avoid requesting impeachment‑limiting instruction is not ineffective assistance)
- Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2009) (defendant must point to specific acts or omissions outside wide range of competent assistance)
- Pearson v. State, 280 S.W.3d 640 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (analysis when counsel fails to strike an unqualified juror for cause)
- James v. State, 222 S.W.3d 302 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (presumption of prejudice when unqualified juror not struck, absent reasonable strategy)
- Branyon v. State, 304 S.W.3d 166 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (similar questions opening door to arrest evidence do not necessarily show Strickland prejudice)