Henry v. State, 19 A.3d 944

In PG County, Henry, Curry, Patterson, and Bell were involved in a debt-collection incident at Barfield's apartment; Curry and Patterson confronted Barfield to collect money.
During the confrontation, Curry and Chew fought; Patterson aided Curry; Henry left, then returned with a sawed-off rifle.
Henry shot Curry seven times, killing him; four bullets hit Curry from behind; a bullet struck Deana Bell, killing her on the apartment steps.
Patterson took cover; witnesses described Henry aiming at Curry and appearing to miss his companion; the rifle was described as two feet long with a 16-inch barrel.
Trial evidence suggested Henry acted with homicidal intent toward Curry; Bell’s death occurred during the same shooting event, though Bell was not the intended victim.
At trial, defense argued there was no homicidal intent toward Bell and framed the case as depraved-heart murder vs. potential manslaughter for Bell, with no instruction sought for involuntary manslaughter.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether transferred intent applies when both victims are killed	State argues yes; intent to kill transfers to unintended victim when both die.	Henry contends transferred intent does not apply when the intended victim is killed in the same act.	Yes; transferred intent applies when both intended and unintended victims are killed.
Whether jury should have been instructed on involuntary manslaughter for the unintended victim	State contends instruction not required because transferred intent resolves culpability.	Henry argues an involuntary manslaughter instruction was appropriate given depraved-heart context.	No; if transferred intent applies, no lesser-included involuntary manslaughter instruction is needed for the unintended victim.

People v. Bland, 48 P.3d 1107 (Cal. 2002) (disapproved Birreuta; transferred intent can apply to unintended victims)
Gladden v. Maryland, 330 A.2d 188 (Md. 1974) (transferred intent applies to mens rea against intended victim carrying to unintended victim)
Ford v. State, 625 A.2d 984 (Md. 1993) (dictum limiting transferred intent in certain contexts; later disapproved)
Poe v. State, 671 A.2d 501 (Md. 1996) (transferred intent applies where a bullet intended for one kills another)
Sampol, 636 F.2d 621 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (transferred intent applied to multiple victims in murder case)
State v. Worlock, 569 A.2d 1314 (N.J. 1990) (endorsed transferred intent across multiple victims)
State v. Hinton, 630 A.2d 593 (Conn. 1993) (separate injuries justify separate culpability; supports broad transfer concept)
United States v. Sampol, 636 F.2d 621 (D.C.Cir. 1980) (federal application of transferred intent where intended and unintended victims are killed)
United States v. Weddell, 567 F.2d 767 (8th Cir. 1977) (federal transfer of intent considerations in homicide)
People v. Birreuta, 162 Cal.App.3d 454 (Cal. App. 1984) (initial California view disapproved by Bland)
Garrett v. State, Md. 217 (2006) (caution against concurrent intent theory for attempted murders)