Woman seeks new trial or lesser sentence
By Jennifer Harr Herald-Standard
A Fayette County judge on Friday heard arguments about why a Brownsville woman should receive a new trial or a lesser sentence in the stabbing death of her boyfriend in 2009.
In July, Dayna McMaster, 32, was convicted of third-degree murder and sentenced to 20 to 40 years in prison for killing Clarence Blair III, 46, of Brownsville when she stabbed him with a knife in the chest on June 26 at a remote gas well in Redstone Township. The blade of the knife hit his heart, and Blair died.
McMaster’s attorney, Assistant Public Defender Jeremy Davis, argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict McMaster of third-degree murder, which is a killing committed with malice.
“The stabbing was accidental,” Davis maintained during the argument.
President Judge Gerald R. Solomon asked if using the knife would have shown malice on McMaster’s part, and Davis argued that her testimony at trial showed that she used the knife to defend herself against Blair. McMaster testified Blair had been physically abusing her, and she hid the knife under her leg, and had to use it when he attacked her in his truck.
Prosecutors argued during the trial that McMaster waited until she and Blair were in a secluded area, and then pulled out the knife she had hidden and stabbed him.
Davis noted that police showed pictures of wounds to McMaster’s body, allegedly inflicted by Blair.
“There was some evidence that she was defending herself even before she testified in the case,” Davis said.
He said jurors should not have found that McMaster had malice, a necessary element to convict someone of murder instead of manslaughter.
Solomon noted that McMaster hid the knife under her leg when she was in the truck with Blair, and asked if that could show malice.
“Isn’t the jury free to believe all, part or none of her testimony?” the judge asked.
“They are. But he had already beaten her. + She only used it when she felt she had to defend herself against this man,” Davis argued.
District Attorney Jack R. Heneks said that a jury verdict should stand if supported by reasonable inferences – and argued that in this case, it is. He argued that McMaster used the knife on a vital part of Blair’s body, from which a jury could infer malice. He noted that McMaster “plunged the knife in at very close range” and the blade of the knife was completely submerged into Blair’s body.
Heneks noted that McMaster secreted the knife under her body, and when she had an opportunity to get out of Blair’s truck when they stopped at the home of a friend, McMaster did not.
“The verdict is warranted and all the evidence – the weight of the evidence – spoke volumes to the culpability of the defendant,” Heneks said.
In his argument to lower the sentence, Davis said that McMaster had no prior record and the standard range of sentencing started at 72 months. Davis said that the judge should have taken into consideration that McMaster, a mother, was abused and after she stabbed Blair, she drove him to the hospital and tried to help him.
Heneks countered that the sentence was “clearly within the guidelines.”
“Obviously, we can’t bring back his life + but the sentence should be consistent with the law,” Heneks said.
During the trial, McMaster testified he abused her, and she hid his hunting knife under her leg while she was a passenger in his truck because she felt he would kill her. Several prosecution witnesses testified that they had never seen Clarence Blair abuse McMaster, but on multiple occasions saw her attack him.