State v. Henson
754 S.E.2d 508
S.C.2014Background
- In Rock Hill, SC, a masked man and a woman robbed occupants on a porch; the man then fired and killed Tyrone King. No physical evidence linked any defendant to the scene.
- Donta Reid gave multiple statements; his fourth confession implicated Reid, Henson (nickname B’More), Samantha Ervin, and Aileen Newman, and identified the shooter (unnamed in the redaction) as one of the group; Reid later implicated a different person in earlier statements.
- Henson and Reid were tried jointly; Ervin and Newman pled guilty and testified against Henson, identifying him as the shooter and admitting plea deals.
- The State offered a redacted version of Reid’s fourth confession that replaced Henson’s name with neutral terms such as “the guy,” and excluded a lineup-identification sentence; the court admitted it over Henson’s objection and denied severance.
- Henson was convicted on all counts and appealed, arguing admission of the redacted confession violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right because Reid did not testify and Henson could not cross-examine him.
- The court reversed, finding the redaction facially implicated Henson (the jury could infer the confession referred to him) and the error was not harmless given the paucity of independent evidence identifying Henson as the shooter.
Issues
| Issue | Henson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of Reid’s redacted confession at a joint trial violated Henson’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right | The redaction still implicated Henson (neutral pronouns and gaps pointed to him); Reid didn’t testify so Henson couldn’t cross-examine | Redaction cured the Confrontation problem; judicial economy and lack of prejudice justified admission; limiting instruction adequate | Admission violated the Confrontation Clause because the confession facially incriminated Henson; error not harmless; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (Confessions by a nontestifying codefendant that incriminate defendant violate the Confrontation Clause)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (Redaction that eliminates any reference to defendant may avoid Bruton problem when accompanied by limiting instruction)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (Blanks or obvious deletions that still refer to defendant facially incriminate and are barred by Bruton)
- State v. Holder, 382 S.C. 278 (S.C. Ct. App.) (676 S.E.2d 690) (Neutral-pronoun redactions that facially refer to defendant violate Confrontation Clause)
- United States v. Richards, 241 F.3d 335 (3d Cir. 2001) (Redaction using terms like “my friend” can be as incriminating as blanks and violate Bruton)
- Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2001) (Replacing defendant’s name with “the other person” allowed jury to infer identity; Confrontation Clause violation)
- Jefferson v. State, 359 Ark. 454 (198 S.W.3d 527) (2004) (Redactions to pronouns like “he” or “they” that obviously refer to defendant violate Confrontation Clause)