Nathan McDaniel, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed Nathan McDaniel Jr.'s murder conviction because the trial court improperly denied motions to strike two equivocal jurors for cause, requiring the defense to use peremptory challenges. The court held that the jury-selection error denied McDaniel a substantial right and remanded for further proceedings. It also addressed evidentiary issues likely to recur on remand, including admission of a bleach-bottle photograph, hearsay testimony, autopsy photographs, cross-examination regarding a witness's robbery conviction, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

Holdings

1. The trial court abused its discretion by seating prospective jurors who gave genuinely equivocal answers concerning their ability to be fair and impartial, thereby forcing the defense to use two peremptory strikes to secure an unbiased jury.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the photograph because it was not evidence of a prior bad act by McDaniel and was relevant to the motive of his alleged co-conspirators without unduly prejudicing him.
3. Admission of Chief Culver's statements about information learned from Eugene was error because the testimony did not merely explain police action that was itself at issue.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting cross-examination to the fact of Schott's felony conviction and prohibiting inquiry into the circumstances of the robbery.
5. The Commonwealth's references to the beating as the worst in Clay County and to making a deal with a demon were not improper under the circumstances.
6. The court could not assess the photographs' prejudicial effect because the photographs were not included in the record, and the omission was attributed to the appellant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying McDaniel's motions to strike prospective jurors S.W. and A.W. for cause.
2. Whether admission of a photograph of a bleach bottle violated KRE 404(b) or was unduly prejudicial.
3. Whether testimony by Chief Jeff Culver about information learned from Eugene Sizemore constituted inadmissible hearsay.
4. Whether the trial court improperly restricted cross-examination concerning witness Eric Schott's prior robbery conviction.
5. Whether the Commonwealth made improper comments during opening and closing argument.
6. Whether the appellate record was sufficient to establish prejudice from admission of autopsy photographs.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded