State v. Henry
| Decision Date | 25 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 21-0075 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JORDAN CHRISTOPHER HENRY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven J Andreasen, Judge.
Jordan Henry appeals his conviction for second-degree murder. AFFIRMED.
Jennifer Bennett Finn of Pelzer Law Firm, LLC, Estherville for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Israel Kodiaga, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.
Christopher Henry was criminally charged after he set fire in a hotel room and Elizabeth Bockholt's body was found in the room. Following a bench trial, Henry was convicted of second-degree murder and first-degree arson. On appeal, Henry challenges only his conviction for second-degree murder and contends there is insufficient evidence of malice aforethought to support the conviction, his constitutional right to present a defense was violated when the district court ruled he could not rely on "methamphetamine-induced psychosis" as a complete defense, the evidence established he was insane as a result of his voluntary intoxication, and resentencing is needed because the court's statements were ambiguous. Finding no merit in any of his claims and a clear intent to impose consecutive sentences, we affirm.
Henry asserts there is insufficient evidence of malice aforethought to support the second-degree murder conviction. We review Henry's sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge for legal error. See State v. Lacey, 968 N.W.2d 792, 800 (Iowa 2021). Our sufficiency review is the same for a bench trial as a jury trial. State v. Myers, 924 N.W.2d 823, 826 (Iowa 2019). The court's findings of fact have the effect of a special verdict and are binding on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; Myers, 924 N.W.2d at 826. "Evidence is substantial when the quantum and quality of evidence is sufficient to 'convince a rational fact finder that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Lacey, 968 N.W.2d at 800 (citation omitted). We "consider[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including all reasonable inferences that may be fairly drawn from the evidence." Id.
In a fifty-two page detailed and comprehensive ruling, the trial court made these findings and conclusions relevant to the finding of guilt on second-degree murder.
It essentially is not disputed that the circumstances in this matter occurred in Woodbury County on or about January 24, 2019. The Wingate Hotel was located in Sioux City, Woodbury County, Iowa. The testimony of the witnesses and the 911 call records from the hotel all establish that Bockholt was alive in the morning of January 24 and was pronounced dead at the hospital in the late hours that same day. Her body was found by the firefighters around 9:30 p.m. The questions are whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Bockholt was strangled and, if so, that Henry strangled her.
In this regard, the court finds and concludes that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Henry strangled Bockholt on or about January 24, 2019, in Woodbury County, Iowa.
For reasons discussed in more detail in regard to causation under Element 2 below, the court finds the testimony of Pathologist [Jonathan] Thompson regarding strangulation to be credible. The abrasions, bruising, and ligature marks noted extemally on Bockholt's neck are consistent with strangulation and the application of force to her neck. The internal or subcutaneous hemorrhaging found in the muscles and other soft tissue in the neck were also consistent with and further established such strangulation, considering the force applied to Bockholt's neck required to cause such internal trauma.
Although the court agrees with Henry that there were no direct eyewitnesses who saw Henry strangle Bockholt, the circumstantial evidence presented at trial in this regard was overwhelming and beyond a reasonable doubt. Henry checked into Room 102 of the hotel through [his aunt, Sherry] Jones during the evening of January 23. He was still in Room 102 at around 11:30 a.m. when Jones spoke to him on the phone. He then exited Room 102 just after 9:21 p.m. when [Brenda] Chaffin and Phil Bockholt knocked on the door. Bockholt was dropped off at Room 102 by Chaffin in the morning of January 24. Approximately two hours after Bockholt was dropped off, a female answered Jones' call to Room 102 of the hotel. Bockholt then called [Staci] Hansen from the Wingate Hotel during the afternoon, with the last call around 5:44 p.m. Finally, Bockholt's body was found inside Room 102 by the firefighters within minutes after Henry left the room and the hotel. No other persons were located inside Room 102 from the time Chaffin and Phil Bockholt arrived until Bockholt's body was discovered. The desk clerk . . . at the hotel also saw no disturbance or any person believed to be Bockholt in the hallways and common areas of the hotel when Hansen called looking for her.
Bockholt and Henry, therefore, were the only two people in Room 102 in the morning of the 24th and were the only two people in Room 102 later that night when Henry left the room and the hotel and Bockholt's body was discovered. Bockholt was alive and at the hotel in the afternoon when she called Hansen from the hotel but was not seen in any common areas of the hotel by the desk manager when Hansen called looking for her. There otherwise was no evidence that other persons entered Room 102 during the evening of January 24 before Bockholt's body was discovered.
.... The "window" of time when the strangulation occurred would have been between 5:44 [p.m.] when Bockholt last called Hansen and sometime prior to approximately 9:20 [p.m.] when Chaffin and Phil Bockholt knocked on the door to Room 102. The circumstantial evidence submitted at trial establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Bockholt and Henry were the only persons in Room 102 during that time....
The court finds and concludes that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Bockholt died as a result of the strangulation. In reaching this finding and conclusion, the court initially finds the testimony of Pathologist Thompson to be credible. The court considers his education and experience, the reasons he gave for his opinion and conclusions regarding cause of death, and all other evidence in this case. The court finds his testimony and conclusions concerning cause of death to be reasonable and consistent with other evidence in this case. ....
Other evidence presented at trial, however, weighs in favor of a finding that Henry acted with malice aforethought.
First and foremost, the court again finds credible the opinions and conclusions of the pathologist regarding strangulation as the cause of death. More importantly, the court finds credible the testimony that it likely would have taken less than [ten] seconds before Bockholt lost consciousness and at least approximately 100 seconds (one minute, forty seconds) before death, depending on the extent of any struggle. Considering the existence of two ligature marks on Bockholt's neck, Henry either choked or strangled her two separate times or essentially got a second grip on her neck during the strangulation, perhaps initially when Bockholt was still conscious and moving. Strangling another person is clearly a wrongful act. Henry did that act intentionally in that he intentionally strangled Bockholt-it was not an accident. He would have strangled Bockholt for more than one and a half minutes after she went unconscious. The force applied as evidenced by the trauma internally and externally and amount of time such force was applied is strong evidence that Henry, at a minimum, had the general intent to do physical harm to Bockholt. ....
Additionally, as has been said, malice is a term of art describing a culpable state of mind. Although the malice aforethought must exist prior to the act, the court considers Henry's actions after the strangulation in determining whether he had such culpable state of mind (malice) prior to the strangulation. In this regard, .... Henry placed Bockholt's body in the area where the fire was started. He left the room and then the hotel when Chaffin and Phil Bockholt arrived at the door. He then went to [the home of relatives] where he effectively attempted to hide since he did not knock on the door or identify himself to [his relatives], apparently unscrewed an outdoor light bulb, and was found "ducking" by the officer. These actions are all consistent with a guilty or culpable state of mind. They are consistent with a person intentionally doing an act with a wrongful purpose.
The court also gives consideration to other circumstantial evidence suggesting some level of ill-will or animosity existing prior to the strangulation. At the time of Henry's phone call to Bockholt from prison on January 4 there is no evidence to suggest that either Henry or Bockholt were under the influence of meth. It was a phone call, as opposed to a face-to-face meeting, and there was nothing said by Bockholt that was particularly aggressive, confrontational, or provocative. Yet, under these relatively benign conditions, Henry became angry, derogatory, and demanding toward Bockholt. Again, Bockholt still went to the hotel on the 24th voluntarily and there apparently were no incidents for several hours before the strangulation. The phone call, in and of itself, may not establish actual hatred. It is evidence, however, of how Henry could act toward Bockholt and of their potentially acrimonious relationship. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial