OTT LAW

Brandon C. McGuire, Appellant, vs. State Of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

II. The Trial During voir dire, defense counsel asked a general question to the venire, and Juror Tanika Hale ("Juror Hale"), who was an accountant, eventually responded following another juror's answer: [Defense counsel]: Okay. Now, in the box, I anticipate there is going to be some very graphic testimony about things of a sexual nature, and I address this to everyone in the box at this time and to the people in the front chairs. Will any of you have any difficulty in sitting and listening to testimony from a young woman concerning matters of a graphic sexual nature? And the reason I'm asking because some people will, you know, can get turned off and don't want to listen, and if you do, if it's going to bother you, and I anticipate there may be pictures, if it's going to bother you, now is the time to let it be known. [Defense counsel]: ... Juror Number 601. [Juror 60 l]: Yes. I would have a problem with that. The visual aids, I would have a problem. [Defense counsel]: So you would think that you may be turned off to the point where you may not even listen to the testimony? [Juror 601]: If it's graphic like that, it might be a stopping point for me. [Defense counsel]: So you would think that you may be turned off to the point where you may not even listen to the testimony? [Juror 601]: If it's graphic like that, it might be a stopping point for me. [Defense counsel]: I understand. Anyone else in the box that feels as Juror 601 feels, that there could be a point where the testimony or the pictures and something that's put forth is of such a nature that it just turns you off and you can't focus on that? Anyone in the pews to my right. Juror 810, please stand. [Juror Hale]: I couldn't do it. [Defense counsel]: You couldn't do it. [Juror Hale]: No. [Emphasis added.] No additional questions were asked of Juror Hale about her ability to weigh evidence of a graphic sexual nature. Neither party moved to strike Juror Hale, and she served on petit jury. 4

were inflicted near the time of death, but while she was alive. Swabs collected from K.J. revealed a mixture of male and female DNA, with the female DNA matching K.J. and the male DNA matching McGuire. With regard to H.T., McGuire again admitted to having consensual sex with her shortly before the crime occurred. McGuire also testified that, after having sex with H.T., he noticed that his hand and genitals contained blood, and he subsequently pushed H.T. out of the car. H.T. identified McGuire as her attacker, and several other witnesses described injuries to H.T. and the death ofH.T. 's unborn baby. The evidence to support McGuire's convictions was strong. We recognize the Johnson court emphasized that the State had not alluded to the prior arrests in closing argument. Here, the prosecutor briefly mentioned McGuire's evasive tes timony about his prior arrests in closing arguments, suggesting that McGuire was lying. While this fact may slightly increase the prejudice to McGuire, we remain unconvinced that such prejudice un dermined the jury's verdict given the other evidence of McGuire's guilt. Branyon also suppo1ts our finding of no Strickland prejudice. 304 S.W.3d at 167. In Branyon, defense counsel also opened the door to evidence of the defendant's prior atTests by asking him if he had ever been in trouble. Id. On cross-examination, the defendant admitted a prior arrest for what he recalled as "assault of a child." Id. A majority of the court affirmed the motion court's finding ofno Strickl and prejudice. Id. at 169. In doing so, the majority noted that the State did not emphasize the arrest-related evidence and it was not alluded to again at trial. Id. Further, there was "significant credible evidence" of the defendant's guilt at trial. Id. The dissenting opinion would have found that Strickland prejudice did occur. Id. at 179. The dis sent stressed that the case, for child molestation, boiled down to a "he said/she said" scenario for the jury, and that the evidence was not terribly strong. Id. at 175. The dissent also noted that 16

Related Opinions

Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987

affirmed
criminal-lawmajority4,922 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,374 words

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,516 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,993 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261

affirmed

Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,603 words