State v. McDonald
163 N.H. 115
| N.H. | 2011Background
- McDonald convicted by jury of first-degree murder (RSA 630:1-a, I(a)).
- McDonald moved in March 2008, used victim Richard Wilcox's home; attempted to negotiate a motorcycle sale while posing as Wilcox.
- Defendant later admitted killing Wilcox but claimed self-defense; motive included stealing Wilcox's truck, with involvement in a fraudulent vehicle transaction.
- Evidence showed McDonald impersonated Wilcox in negotiations, transferred titles, and fled to Vermont after Wilcox's death.
- Interrogation of McDonald by police at Vermont barracks included statements about his demeanor; court admitted lay opinion about demeanor; trial addressed self-defense instruction and closing argument references to AFSA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of lay opinion on demeanor and credibility | State argues admissible as lay opinion on demeanor | McDonald contends it invaded credibility assessment | Admissibility not allowed; testimony impermissibly commented on credibility |
| Harmlessness of error from demeanor testimony | State asserts overwhelming other evidence of guilt | McDonald contends error was not harmless | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strong alternative evidence of guilt |
| Self-defense instruction scope regarding forcible sex offense | State supports using definitional term 'forcible sex offense' | McDonald seeks broader AFSA scope; argues closing reference improper | Trial court proper; 'forcible sex offense' language adequate per statute context |
| Restriction on closing argument referencing AFSA | State opposes defense AFSA references | McDonald argues closing should reference AFSA | Trial court correct to prohibit AFSA closing reference; instruction sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Huard, 138 N.H. 256 (1994) (police demeanor testimony limited; credibility matters reserved for jury)
- State v. White, 155 N.H. 119 (2007) (admissibility of evidence within trial court's discretion)
- State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416 (2007) (standard for reversible error on evidentiary ruling)
- State v. Stott, 149 N.H. 170 (2003) (lay opinions about demeanor limited; cannot replace credibility evaluation by jury)
- State v. Kulas, 145 N.H. 246 (2000) (permissible factual testimony; not credibility assessment)
- State v. Reynolds, 136 N.H. 325 (1992) (lay opinion testimony allowed if perception-based and helpful to jury)