State v. McFadden, 2013 Mo. LEXIS 8

McFadden was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action and sentenced to death; Missouri Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to review death sentences.
The underlying crime occurred May 15, 2003: McFadden confronted Eva Addison, threatened her sister Leslie, and shot Leslie, after stating that one of the women had to die that night.
Leslie died from a gunshot wound to the head; Eva Addison and her sister were witnesses; McFadden was also connected to prior violent convictions used as statutory aggravators.
During penalty, the State sought six aggravating circumstances based on McFadden’s prior serious assaultive convictions; the jury found all six beyond a reasonable doubt and imposed death.
McFadden appeals arguing, among other things, juror nondisclosure, trial instructions, venue critiques, and prosecutorial conduct; the court reviews for prejudice and abuse of discretion.
The Missouri Supreme Court affirms the death sentence, finding no reversible error on the preserved or plain-error grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Juror nondisclosure	McFadden claims Williams intentionally withheld prior recognition of McFadden.	McFadden argues nondisclosure was prejudicial and plain error.	No plain error; no proven intentional nondisclosure or prejudice.
Aggravator instruction in separate paragraphs	Submitting six aggravators in separate paragraphs misleads jury about balance of aggravators and mitigators.	Separate paragraphs for aggravators are permissible.	No error; separate paragraphs permitted.
Removal of prospective jurors for cause	Court abused discretion in striking Behrens, Stevens, Brunetti for death-penalty views.	Court properly struck jurors unwilling to sign a death verdict.	No error; strikes for cause permissible where jurors could not fairly consider penalties.
Serious assaultive convictions (Apprendi/Ring issue)	McFadden contends prior offenses must be proven as serious and assessed by the court.	Jury may consider prior convictions as aggravators; court decides legal classification of prior offenses as serious.	No error; determination of serious assaultive status is a question of law for the court.
Penalty-phase evidence and burden of proof	Prosecutor’s arguments and evidence in penalty phase improperly influenced the jury’s discretion.	Arguments were supported by the record and properly rebutted by the court when necessary.	No reversible error; prosecutorial arguments were within permissible scope and correctly coached by instructions.

State v. McFadden, 369 S.W.3d 727 (Mo. banc 2012) (central death-penalty review and evidentiary standards)
State v. Taylor, 18 S.W.3d 366 (Mo. banc 2000) (aggravators may be separated in trial; permissible)
State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527 (Mo. banc 2010) (proportionality review; cross-panel representation considerations)
State v. Whitfield, 107 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. banc 2003) (burden-of-proof considerations and instruction-related challenges)
State v. Simmons, 955 S.W.2d 752 (Mo. banc 1997) (acquittal/death sentence interplay; aggravating factors)
State v. Rhodes, 988 S.W.2d 521 (Mo. banc 1999) (emotional arguments permissible if tied to evidence and understanding)
State v. Strong, 142 S.W.3d 702 (Mo. banc 2004) (prosecutor may express opinion on death penalty when based on evidence)
State v. Barrett, Not applicable (Not applicable) (placeholder for consistency)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (constitutional requirement of jury factual findings for sentencing enhancements)