Henderson v. State
| Citation | 248 So.3d 992 |
| Decision Date | 10 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | CR–12–0043 |
| Parties | Gregory Lance HENDERSON v. STATE of Alabama |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court 1160768
Bryan A. Stevenson, Angela L. Setzer, Andrew R. Childers, and Alison Nicole Mollman, Montgomery; and Todd Crutchfield, Auburn, for appellant.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and James R. Houts, asst. gen., for appellee.
Gregory Lance Henderson was convicted of capital murder under § 13A–5–40(a)(6), Ala. Code 1975, for the intentional murder of an on-duty law-enforcement officer, Deputy James Anderson. At sentencing, the jury completed a series of special interrogatories regarding aggravating circumstances pursuant to § 13A–5–49, Ala. Code 1975, and found unanimously that the capital murder was committed while Henderson was under sentence of imprisonment, § 13A–5–49(1) ; that Henderson had previously been convicted of a felony involving violence or the threat of violence to another person, § 13A–5–49(2) ; that Henderson committed the murder for the purpose of avoiding or preventing lawful arrest or to effect an escape from custody, § 13A–5–49(5) ; and that the offense was committed in order to hinder or disrupt the lawful exercise of a government function or enforcement of the laws, § 13A–5–49(7). The jurors did not unanimously find that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel, § 13A–5–49(8). The jury recommended, by a 9–3 vote, that Henderson be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. At the final sentencing hearing, the trial court overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced Henderson to death. The trial court entered a lengthy and thorough sentencing order. The trial court entered specific findings concerning the existence or nonexistence of each aggravating circumstance enumerated in § 13A–5–49, Ala. Code 1975. The trial court found four aggravating circumstances: that the capital offense was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment, § 13A–5–49(1) ; that Henderson had previously been convicted of another capital offense or a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person, § 13A–5–49(2) ; that the capital offense was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody, § 13–A–5–49(5); and that the capital offense was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws, § 13A–5–49(7). The trial court found no statutory mitigating circumstances to exist. The trial court found the following nonstatutory mitigating circumstances to exist: that Henderson had expressed remorse; that Henderson was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of the offense; that Henderson had been diagnosed as having an antisocial personality disorder
and displaying poor judgment; that Henderson had no violent disciplinary infractions while he was in jail awaiting trial; that Henderson joined the Navy when he was 19 years old; and that Henderson had a good relationship with his children. Pursuant to Ex parte Carroll, 852 So.2d 833 (Ala. 2002), the trial court considered the jury's recommendation that Henderson receive a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as a mitigating circumstance. The trial court then found that the aggravating circumstances vastly outweighed the mitigating circumstances and sentenced Henderson to death.
On September 24, 2009, Deputy Anderson and Deputy Katie Bonham of the Lee County Sheriff's Department were on routine patrol when they encountered a white Honda Civic automobile that Henderson was driving. Deputy Bonham was driving the patrol car, and Henderson was traveling in the opposite direction. She testified that Henderson pulled into a driveway as they passed him, and then he immediately pulled back out onto the road and continued driving. It appeared to the officers that Henderson was attempting to evade them, so Deputy Bonham turned the patrol car around and followed him. Deputy Anderson contacted the dispatcher at the sheriff's office to check the license plate on the car. When the dispatcher reported that the license plate was registered to an older model black Ford Thunderbird automobile, the deputies decided to conduct a traffic stop. Henderson drove into another driveway. Deputy Bonham turned on the blue lights on the patrol car, which automatically activated the video-recording system in the car. While in the driveway, Henderson turned the Honda to the right. Deputy Anderson quickly got out of the passenger's seat of the patrol car, drew his gun, and yelled at Henderson repeatedly to stop. Deputy Bonham testified that Henderson backed up to try to escape down the driveway so she drove the patrol car behind him to block him from doing so. Deputy Anderson was on the driver's-side of Henderson's car and, Deputy Bonham testified, "Henderson pressed the accelerator as far as it would go and piled over Deputy Anderson." (R. 1782.) Deputy Anderson was dragged a few feet by the vehicle and then remained pinned under Henderson's car when Henderson stopped driving forward. Deputy Bonham got out of the patrol car and fired two shots at Henderson. One shot entered the driver's-side door frame, and the second shot hit the engine block. Henderson laid his head over as if he had been shot, Deputy Bonham said, so she paused for a moment. Henderson then grabbed the steering wheel and accelerated repeatedly. He appeared to shift the car from "reverse" to "drive," and he accelerated each time he shifted gears. The tires were in the dirt, so each time Henderson accelerated the tires spun and dug deeper into the ground. The Honda sank further down on top of Deputy Anderson. Deputy Bonham repeatedly ordered Henderson to get out and to lie on the ground. Henderson did not initially comply, but he did eventually get out of the car and lie on the ground.
Henderson cried and repeatedly asked Deputy Bonham to help get Deputy Anderson from under his car, but she held him at gunpoint until she received backup assistance and Henderson was placed in handcuffs. Before backup assistance arrived, the resident of the house where this incident took place came outside. He testified that he brought a jack to lift the Honda, but that the car was too low and he could not get the jack under the car. When emergency personnel and law-enforcement officers began to arrive, additional efforts were made to get Henderson's car off of Deputy Anderson. Car jacks were used in an attempt to raise Henderson's vehicle, but the jacks sank into the dirt and did not raise the vehicle enough to pull the deputy out.
Deputy Bonham testified that when she looked under the car, Deputy Anderson was not moving or talking and she was not sure whether he was breathing. More time passed before a tow truck came to the scene and raised Henderson's car off Deputy Anderson. CPR was administered and Deputy Anderson was transported to the hospital, but he did not survive. The forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy testified that Deputy Anderson suffered burns, abrasions, fractures of the sternum
and three ribs, and hemorrhages in the muscles around the ribs. Those injuries were not sufficient to have caused death or immediate unconsciousness, the pathologist said. The cause of death was determined to be traumatic asphyxia that resulted from the weight of the vehicle on his chest that prevented him from being able to breathe, and it resulted in the fatal lack of oxygen to his brain. The pathologist further testified that when a brain is deprived of oxygen for approximately four minutes, irreversible brain injury occurs and, at that point, Deputy Anderson could not have been resuscitated.
Investigators processed the scene. A law-enforcement officer found a large blade between the driver's seat and the door of the Honda. The State presented evidence from the investigation of the crime, including photographs and a diagram of the scene and the recording from the video camera in the patrol car.
Henderson presented testimony from Dr. Glen King, a clinical and forensic psychologist who conducted a mental evaluation of Henderson before trial and prepared a written report. Dr. King made three diagnoses: cannabis dependence, amphetamine dependence
, and antisocial personality disorder. Dr. King also stated in the report that Henderson was likely intoxicated at the time of the crime. On cross-examination, Dr. King testified that, based on further consideration after he submitted the report, it was his opinion that Henderson was not intoxicated or impaired at the time of the offense.
A forensic toxicologist testified that she had tested a sample of Henderson's blood that was taken when he arrived at the jail, several hours after Deputy Anderson died. Henderson's blood contained methamphetamine and an inactive metabolite of marijuana. The levels of methamphetamine would have been higher had Henderson's blood been taken closer to the time of the incident, she said. The toxicologist testified that methamphetamine is a stimulant and that a person with the level of methamphetamine found in Henderson's blood could be impulsive, easily distracted, and have excessive energy but that she could not testify as to any impairment Henderson might have actually experienced.
In the State's rebuttal case the nurse at the Russell County jail testified that she drew Henderson's blood and obtained a urine sample during her routine assessment of Henderson as a new inmate, and that, as part of that assessment, she asked Henderson about his drug use. Henderson told her that he only used marijuana and alcohol and that he had not ingested either of those substances in the previous two days. Although Henderson did not admit to recent methamphetamine use, his urine sample tested positive for methamphetamine. The nurse testified that she could not tell whether Henderson...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capote v. State
...to determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination in the prosecution's jury strikes." Henderson v. State, 248 So. 3d 992, 1015 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017).After voir dire, excusals, and challenges for cause, 47 prospective jurors remained. The State exercised 18 peremptory s......
-
Petersen v. State
...App. 2003). See alsoMaples v. State, 758 So. 2d 1, 65 (Ala. Crim. App.), aff'd, 758 So. 2d 81 (Ala. 1999)." Henderson v. State, 248 So. 3d 992, 1005 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017). With these legal principles in mind, we now address Petersen's arguments on appeal.A. First, Petersen argues that the ......
-
Lindsay v. State
...discrimination, there is no plain error. See, e.g., Gobble v. State, 104 So.3d 920, 949 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010)." Henderson v. State, 248 So.3d 992, 1016 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017). Alabama appellate courts have rarely found plain error in the Batson context. Indeed, on numerous occasions this C......
-
Lane v. State
...or most of its strikes against black veniremembers. With these principles in mind, we turn to [Lane's] claims." Henderson v. State, 248 So. 3d 992, 1016-17 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017) ). In support of his Batson claim, Lane alleges that the State "used 10 of its 21 [peremptory] strikes, or 48%, ......