Gregory Shawn Henley v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 13562
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Gregory Henley was convicted by a jury of assault causing bodily injury to his former wife; sentenced to 200 days in county jail.
- On March 3, 2012, Henley physically assaulted Brandy after she arrived to pick up their children pursuant to court-ordered supervised visitation; Henley later left, leaving the children with Brandy.
- Henley sought to introduce evidence that he believed the children were being sexually and physically abused by Brandy’s fiancé and ex-stepson and that a recent counseling session (about a week earlier) had newly corroborated allegations and suggested Brandy knew; the trial court excluded that evidence.
- The trial court allowed voir dire/bill-of-exceptions testimony outside the jury, where Henley described the counseling disclosures, his attempts to warn Brandy and her mother, and his belief that immediate intervention was necessary to protect the children. Henley did not testify before the jury after exclusion.
- The State argued the proffered evidence was too remote to show an immediate necessity for defense of a third person and emphasized in closing that Henley offered "no excuse."
- The appellate court held the trial court erred by excluding the evidence (preventing Henley from presenting a defense and from confronting/cross-examining witnesses) and reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by excluding evidence supporting defense-of-third-person justification | State: prior incidents and a counseling disclosure a week earlier were too remote to show immediacy; no evidence immediate intervention was necessary | Henley: evidence showed a reasonable, immediate belief children were in danger when Brandy attempted to leave with them; proffer raised each element of justification and was central to his defense | Court: Exclusion was reversible error — evidence admissible to raise defense and should have been presented to jury |
| Whether exclusion violated Henley’s confrontation and cross-examination rights | State: limits were proper under evidentiary rules/remoteness | Henley: exclusion prevented him from confronting Brandy and her mother about facts that explained his state of mind and rebutted portrayal of him as irrational | Court: Exclusion denied meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense and impaired confrontation rights; constitutional error |
| Standard of review for admitting justification evidence | State: trial court’s evidentiary ruling governed by abuse-of-discretion | Concurring judge: whether evidence raised the defense is a legal question reviewed de novo | Majority: applied abuse-of-discretion but found constitutional limits convert the exclusion into reversible error; concurrence preferred de novo review but reached same result |
| Harmless-error analysis for constitutional exclusion | State: errors harmless given conviction evidence | Henley: exclusion went to heart of defense; prosecutor emphasized lack of excuse | Court: constitutional error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (constitutional guarantee to present a complete defense limits state evidentiary exclusions)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (exclusion of reliable, relevant defense evidence can violate defendant’s right to present a defense)
- Fielder v. State, 756 S.W.2d 309 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court reversibly erred by refusing to admit battered‑spouse evidence central to defense)
- Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defense raised if some evidence on each element would support a rational inference; court should not weigh credibility at threshold)
- Juarez v. State, 308 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. Crim. App.) (admission of evidence raising requisite mental state entitles defendant to instruction; jury decides ultimate factual dispute)
- Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965) (right of confrontation and cross‑examination is fundamental to a fair trial)
- Morales v. State, 357 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App.) (focus of defense-of-third-person is on what actor reasonably believes concerning the third person)