State v. Magee
103 So. 3d 285
La.2012Background
- James C. Magee was indicted for the first degree murder of Adrienne Magee and of Zack Magee, and for two counts of attempted first degree murder (S.M. and L.M.).
- He was tried in St. Tammany Parish; jurors convicted him on all counts and the penalty phase yielded two death sentences and two 50-year terms without parole for the attempted murders.
- Key factual backdrop includes a volatile marriage, protective orders, threats, and a lethal confrontation on April 18, 2007, involving ramming of Adrienne’s car and shotgun fire that killed Adrienne and Zack and injured the children.
- Evidence included eyewitness accounts, forensic testimony, a taped confession, and victim-impact testimony during the penalty phase.
- A gag order was imposed pre-trial, venue was sought to be moved, and the state sought closed-circuit testimony for minor witnesses during voir dire.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change of venue denied despite publicity | Magee argues publicity tainted venire | Magee contends venue should shift due to prejudice | District court did not abuse discretion; venue denial affirmed |
| Strike or waive peremptory challenges rule | Magee argues rule forces curative strikes unnecessarily | Magee failed to preserve error by not using curative strikes | Rule upheld; errors waived for Goostrey but preserved only Goostrey ruling for review |
| Admission of Adrienne’s letter and Tracy's testimony | Letter shows state of mind; Tracy’s statements link to immediacy of killing | Letter partly inadmissible as to past abuse; Confrontation concerns | Portions redacted; admissible state-of-mind evidence and Tracy testimony preserved; errors harmless as to remaining portions |
| Victim-impact evidence in penalty phase | Evidence about community impact admissible under 905.2(A) | Evidence risked arbitrary factors and prejudice | Evidence within statutory scope; any error harmless; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bell, 315 So.2d 307 (La. 1975) (factors for change of venue considered)
- State v. Clark, 851 So.2d 1055 (La. 2003) (prejudice and voir dire analysis in venue decisions)
- State v. Manning, 885 So.2d 1044 (La. 2004) (actual prejudice burden on defendant; seven Bell factors guidance)
- State v. Frank, 803 So.2d 1 (La. 2001) (publicity considerations in venue and voir dire)
- State v. Connolly, 700 So.2d 810 (La. 1997) (exposure to publicity and voir dire guidance)
- Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 803 (U.S. 1975) (jury selection and prejudice considerations in voir dire)