McQueen v. Commonwealth
2011 Ky. LEXIS 75
Ky.2011Background
- McQueen was convicted of intentional murder for shooting Christina Hodge in the back of the head; sentence 32 years.
- The relationship between McQueen and Hodge was tumultuous with abuse, theft accusations, and suicide attempts.
- There were no witnesses; McQueen testified through his police statement claiming the gun discharged accidentally while helping her up.
- Forensic evidence showed a level-angle shot through the back of the head; the gun was functional with safeties in place.
- The Commonwealth introduced witnesses to McQueen's hostility toward Hodge as proof of motive; McQueen did not present his own defense evidence.
- McQueen appealed on four grounds: directed verdict, juror-deselection for cause, admission of bad acts, and exclusion of demeanor evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directed verdict sufficiency | McQueen argues evidence did not prove intent. | Commonwealth asserts ample evidence supports intent. | Denial of directed verdict upheld; evidence supports intent. |
| Juror selection randomness | Erroneous excusal of a felon juror violated randomness. | Error waived under RCr 9.34; no prejudice shown. | Waived; no reversible error shown; no prejudice established. |
| Admission of character evidence | Sweeney testimony showed motive/absence of mistake; admissible under KRE 404(b). | Evidence improperly characterizes McQueen; not admissible as other acts. | Admissible for motive/absence of accident; no abuse of discretion. |
| Exclusion of demeanor evidence | Scott’s lay opinion on accident relevant to defense. | Testimony would be improper lay opinion about mental state. | Evidence excluded; defense right to complete defense not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1991) (directed-verdict standard; substantial evidence required)
- Commonwealth v. Sawhill, 660 S.W.2d 3 (Ky. 1983) (standard for reviewing directed verdict)
- Gabbard v. Commonwealth, 297 S.W.3d 844 (Ky. 2009) (collective facts rule; admissibility of opinion on state of mind)
- Sanders v. Commonwealth, 801 S.W.2d 665 (Ky. 1990) (prejudice/pa higher standard; voir dire context)
- Bowling v. Commonwealth, 942 S.W.2d 293 (Ky. 1997) (waiver and prejudice considerations regarding panel challenges)
- Hall v. Commonwealth, No official reporter citation in text (Ky. 2003) (untimely challenges to jury panel; treated within waiver framework)
- Stroud v. Commonwealth, 922 S.W.2d 382 (Ky. 1996) (RCr 9.34 waiver doctrine application)