State v. Henderson, 344 P.3d 1207

Background

On Nov. 16, 2008 Henderson (Hilltop Crips) was outside a house party when shots were fired toward the house; an 18‑year‑old security guard, Victor Schwenke, was killed. Ballistics later matched a recovered gun to casings at the scene.
Witness accounts conflicted about who fired (Henderson or McClarron) and how many people were in front of the house when shots were fired; much of the evidence was eyewitness testimony with significant variation.
Henderson was charged with first‑degree murder by extreme indifference (RCW 9A.32.030(1)(b)). He requested a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of first‑degree manslaughter (recklessness as disregard of substantial risk that a homicide may occur); the trial court denied the instruction.
The jury convicted Henderson of first‑degree murder. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the manslaughter instruction was warranted under Gamble’s narrowed definition of recklessness; the State sought review.
The Washington Supreme Court (majority) affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that because the statutory definitions are very close and the evidence — viewed most favorably to the defendant — could support manslaughter, the jury should have been instructed on that lesser included offense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Henderson was entitled to a jury instruction on first‑degree manslaughter as a lesser included offense to murder by extreme indifference	State: the facts (shooting into a crowded party) show extreme indifference and a grave risk of death, so manslaughter instruction is not supported	Henderson: conflicting eyewitness evidence and Gamble’s narrowed recklessness definition could support a finding of reckless manslaughter instead of extreme‑indifference murder	Majority: Yes — viewing evidence in the light most favorable to Henderson, a rational jury could find manslaughter rather than murder; instruction required
Proper definition of "recklessly" for manslaughter context	State relied on older cases using a general "substantial risk of a wrongful act" definition	Henderson: Gamble narrows recklessness to "substantial risk a homicide may occur," which is closer to murder and can support a manslaughter instruction	Court: Gamble controls; recklessness in manslaughter means disregarding a substantial risk of homicide, making the two offenses very close and permitting a manslaughter instruction when evidence is viewed for the defendant
Whether prior Court of Appeals decisions (Pettus, Pastrana) still preclude a manslaughter instruction	State: trial court followed Pettus/Pastrana holding such shootings manifest extreme indifference	Henderson: those cases used the broader recklessness definition and were effectively abrogated by Gamble	Court: Pettus/Pastrana relied on the outdated definition; Gamble changed the legal standard, so trial court erred in relying on those cases
Standard of review for refusal to give lesser‑included instruction	State: trial court did not err under its factual assessment	Henderson: trial court applied incorrect legal standard; entitlement to instruction judged by whether evidence, viewed for defendant, raises inference of lesser crime	Court: review for abuse of discretion; trial court abused discretion by applying wrong legal standard and failing to submit manslaughter to the jury

Key Cases Cited

Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1973) (explains jury instruction policy to avoid convictions when evidence supports lesser offense)
State v. Fernandez‑Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448 (Wash. 2000) (evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to defendant for lesser‑included analysis)
State v. Gamble, 154 Wn.2d 457 (Wash. 2005) (defines "recklessly" for manslaughter as disregarding a substantial risk that a homicide may occur)
State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443 (Wash. 1978) (two‑prong test for lesser included offense: elements and factual support)
State v. Pettus, 89 Wn. App. 688 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998) (Court of Appeals decision addressing shooting facts; relied on broader recklessness definition)
State v. Pastrana, 94 Wn. App. 463 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (similar to Pettus; held defendant’s conduct manifested extreme indifference)
State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767 (Wash. 1998) (refusal to instruct on lesser included offense reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Dye, 178 Wn.2d 541 (Wash. 2013) (abuse of discretion occurs when court applies incorrect legal standard)