United States v. Henry
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19240
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Tremale Henry was on supervised release after a federal drug sentence and was arrested for assaults outside an Oklahoma City nightclub.
- At the revocation hearing the district court found Henry committed two separate assaults with a dangerous weapon and also violated supervision by lying to his probation officer.
- For the first assault the court relied on: live testimony from witness Candace Ramsey (who said she saw Henry lunge with a small object), a probation officer’s recounting that Ramsey had told him she saw a knife, and a poor-quality surveillance video showing a rapid movement and bystanders fleeing. Henry cross‑examined Ramsey at the hearing.
- For the second assault the court relied on out-of-court statements made by the victim and his girlfriend to a detective, which the detective relayed to the probation officer and which were presented at the hearing; none of those declarants testified or were cross-examined.
- Henry appealed, arguing the district court impermissibly relied on hearsay. The Tenth Circuit held the first-assault reliance permissible given the witness was present and subject to cross-examination, but found error as to the second assault because the court failed to apply the Jones balancing test under Rule 32.1 when admitting hearsay from absent declarants.
- Because the district court relied on both assaults when imposing sentence and the court cannot determine the second-assault error was harmless, the Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing or other remedial proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hearsay from an available witness (Ramsey) violated Rule 32.1 or due process | Henry: the probation officer’s recounting of Ramsey’s statement that she saw a knife was impermissible hearsay and required application of Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C)/Jones balancing | Government: revocation rules allow hearsay; Ramsey testified live and Henry could cross-examine her, so no Rule 32.1 balancing was necessary | Court: No error—Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) and Jones do not apply to hearsay from witnesses who appear and are subject to cross-examination; admission reviewed for abuse of discretion and met minimal due process |
| Whether hearsay from absent witnesses (victim and girlfriend) was admissible without applying Jones balancing | Henry: court should have applied Jones balancing before admitting absent-witness hearsay | Government: citing Rule 32.1’s “interest of justice” language and district court’s statement suffices | Court: Error—the district court failed to apply Jones balancing to absent-witness hearsay; Jones controls and requires that analysis |
| Whether the Jones error was harmless given a separate valid basis to revoke (the first assault) | Government: harmless because at least one valid violation supported revocation | Henry: the second-assault finding influenced sentencing; error affected final sentence | Court: Not harmless—the second assault may have affected sentencing and the record does not show the same sentence would have been imposed absent the error; remand required |
| Appropriate remedy for the Jones error | Henry: vacatur and remand for reconsideration/resentencing | Government: (urged harmlessness; otherwise defers to district court) | Court: Vacate sentence as to reliance on second assault and remand for resentencing or other proceedings (e.g., apply Jones test, hold new hearing, or re-sentence without second-assault evidence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (describing minimal due process at revocation hearings)
- Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (Rules of Evidence do not apply to revocation hearings)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause discussion regarding in‑court presence of declarant)
- United States v. Jones, 818 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2016) (requires Jones balancing test under Rule 32.1 before admitting absent-witness hearsay)
- United States v. Handley, 678 F.3d 1185 (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (new rule of law applies retroactively to cases on direct review)
- United States v. Harrison, 743 F.3d 760 (error not harmless where record leaves sentence impact speculative)
- United States v. Cordova-Arevalo, 456 F.3d 1229 (examples of harmless-error analysis in sentencing)
- United States v. Anderson, 189 F.3d 1201 (harmless error precedent in sentencing context)