Henson v. State
69 A.3d 26
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Baltimore City jury convicted Henson of conspiracy to violate election-law authority-line disclosure provisions by directing a robocall that omitted an authority line.
- Robodial.org facilitated the robocall; Russell uploaded numbers and test messages, and Henson approved no-authority-line approach.
- Indictment initially referenced EL 16-201(1)(7) but was amended to EL 16-201(a)(6); Henson was convicted only on conspiracy to violate authority-line requirements under EL 13-401 and 13-602(a)(9).
- The robocall urged voters and raised suspicions as to the President’s role on Election Day; no authority line was provided.
- Henson’s sentence: one year with all but two months suspended, plus three years’ probation restricting campaign work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of EL 16-201(1)(7) | Henson argues EL 16-201(1)(7) is vague. | Henson treats vagueness as a First Amendment defense. | No; §16-201(1)(7) not controlling; conviction analyzed under proper statutes. |
| Inconsistent verdicts between conspiracy and completed crime | Conspiracy conviction inconsistent with acquittal on the completed offense. | Conspiracy may lie without conviction of underlying offense. | No reversible inconsistency; allowed under Maryland law. |
| Jury instruction on aiding/abetting in misdemeanors | Instruction improperly framed aider/abettor liability for misdemeanors. | Instruction was legally accurate for accessory liability in misdemeanors. | Properly given; no relief from conviction. |
| Exclusion of expert testimony on responsibility for robocall | Experts would show campaign responsibility, not Henson, for the authority line. | Experts offered legal conclusions and lacked proper basis; trial court acted within discretion. | Court did not abuse discretion; expert testimony on legal ultimate issue inadmissible. |
| Probation condition prohibiting political campaign work | Restriction infringes fundamental rights to political speech/association. | Condition reasonably related to rehabilitation and public order; narrowly tailored. | Affirmed; condition upheld as reasonable and narrowly tailored. |
Key Cases Cited
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (U.S. 1995) (discusses anonymity and First Amendment protection in political messaging)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (upholds disclosure as informational for voters; not speech ceiling)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2003) (upholds disclosure in campaign finance regime; important for informational interests)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. 2010) (disclosure requirements do not prevent speech; require substantial state interest)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (U.S. 1973) (upholds state restrictions on political activity by public employees as permissible)
- Handy v. State, 23 Md.App. 239 (Md. App. 1974) (aider/abettor liability in Maryland law)
- Bellamy v. State, 403 Md. 308 (Md. 2008) (instructional accuracy and liability principles)
- Townes v. State, 314 Md. 71 (Md. 1988) (conspiracy can stand without conviction of underlying offense)
- Grandison v. State, 305 Md. 685 (Md. 1986) (conspiracy principles in Maryland)
- Mitchell v. State, 132 Md.App. 312 (Md. App. 2000) (supporting conspiracy framework)
- Waltermeyer v. State, 60 Md.App. 69 (Md. App. 1984) (Rule 5-704/experts and ultimate issues)