Kevin Ray Henson v. State
388 S.W.3d 762
Tex. App.2012Background
- Kevin R. Henson was convicted of the second-degree felony offense of aggravated assault with an enhancement finding and eight years’ confinement.
- Robert s, the complainant, testified to a longstanding friendship and a motive related to the affair between Henson’s wife and Roberts’ cousin.
- On April 11, 2008, Roberts went to Spring Cypress Car Care to pick up a vacuum hose; confrontation occurred when Roberts questioned Henson about his phone, leading to stabbing
- Roberts suffered eleven stab wounds; Rutledge and Morris aided and helped kick the knife away; Roberts called 9-1-1; a pocketknife was found on Roberts but not shown to be used in the attack.
- Henson testified he acted in self-defense, claiming Roberts tried to stab him first; the trial court instructed on self-defense; the jury convicted after trial.
- Appellant challenged the timing of the trial as a speedy-trial violation, but the issue was not raised at the trial court level and was deemed not preserved for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of the speedy-trial claim | Henson asserts a constitutional speedy-trial violation occurred. | State argues the issue was not preserved since raised on appeal only. | Not preserved; speedy-trial claim waived for appellate review. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence on self-defense and aggravated assault | State failed to negate self-defense; inconsistencies could show Roberts initiated the fight. | State proved aggravated assault and defeated self-defense as the initial aggressor. | Evidence sufficient; jury could find elements beyond reasonable doubt and reject self-defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (four-factor speedy-trial balancing framework)
- Cantu v. State, 253 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (speedy-trial analysis in Texas; burden on defendant to show prejudice)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971) (timing of speedy-trial attachment)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. Supreme Court 1992) (presumptively prejudicial delay framework)
- Guevara v. State, 985 S.W.2d 590 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (preservation requirement for speedy-trial claims; right must be asserted at trial)
- Wade v. State, 83 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002) (preservation and appellate consideration of speedy-trial claims)
- Dean v. State, 995 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999) (need for trial-court hearing to develop Barker factors)
- Mulder v. State, 707 S.W.2d 908 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (preservation requirements for speedy-trial claims)
- Dunn v. State, 819 S.W.2d 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (constitutional speedy-trial issue must be raised; forfeiture on appeal)
- Phillips v. State, 650 S.W.2d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (general speedy-trial timing considerations)
- Dragoo v. State, 96 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (distinguishing preservation when delay defense not asserted earlier)
- Mattox v. State, unpublished memorandum decision (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (courts sometimes address speedy-trial merits despite first-time on appeal)