United States v. Henthorn
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13498
10th Cir.2017Background
- Toni Henthorn died after a >100-foot fall from a cliff in Rocky Mountain National Park in Sept. 2012; Harold Henthorn was charged with first-degree murder based on a theory he pushed her with premeditation and malice.
- Investigators found inconsistencies in Henthorn’s accounts, suspicious timing of calls/texts, apparent knowledge of the location, and large life insurance policies naming him beneficiary.
- Prosecutors sought admission of two prior incidents under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b): (1) the 1995 death of Henthorn’s first wife, Lynn, crushed under a car during a tire-change (investigated as suspicious but treated as accident); and (2) a May 2011 incident where a beam struck Toni at the couple’s cabin (injury; treated as accident).
- District court held a two-day hearing, made Rule 104(b) preliminary findings that a jury could find by a preponderance that each prior incident was not accidental, and admitted both incidents for limited purposes (intent, plan, lack of accident), with limiting instructions.
- Henthorn appealed the admission of the prior-acts evidence; the Tenth Circuit reviewed admission for abuse of discretion and affirmed, applying the four-part Huddleston test (proper purpose, relevance, 403 balance, limiting instruction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Rule 404(b) | Gov’t: prior incidents prove intent, plan, motive, and rebut accident defense | Henthorn: evidence is impermissible propensity evidence and irrelevant | Admitted — proper Rule 404(b) purpose (intent/plan, lack of accident) |
| Relevance (Huddleston similarity) | Gov’t: marked similarities (remote locations, solitary witness, inconsistent stories, insurance, cremation) make prior acts probative of intent | Henthorn: temporal distance and differences make prior acts irrelevant and only show bad character | Relevant — prior acts sufficiently similar; temporal gap not dispositive |
| Rule 104(b) threshold | Gov’t: offered sufficient evidence for jury to conclude prior acts occurred and Henthorn was actor | Henthorn: prior incidents were treated as accidents and not established | District court made 104(b) findings (preponderance); Henthorn did not challenge them on appeal; courts accepted findings |
| Rule 403 unfair prejudice | Henthorn: prior-acts evidence was overly prejudicial and likely to inflame jury | Gov’t: probative value in rebutting accident defense outweighs prejudice; limiting instructions mitigate risk | No abuse of discretion — probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; limiting instructions adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (Rule 404(b) four-part test for other-act evidence)
- United States v. Rodella, 804 F.3d 1317 (10th Cir.) (standard of review and Huddleston application)
- United States v. Mares, 441 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir.) (district court discretion on 404(b))
- United States v. Brooks, 736 F.3d 921 (10th Cir.) (inclusiveness of Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Moran, 503 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir.) (specific propensity logic; relevance of prior similar acts to knowledge/intent)
- United States v. Commanche, 577 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir.) (limits on relevance where prior acts do not bear on contested issue)
- United States v. Cerno, 529 F.3d 926 (10th Cir.) (Rule 403 balancing: give evidence maximum probative force, minimum prejudicial value)
- Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219 (Supreme Court) (prior similar disconnected acts may be shown to establish intent/design)
- United States v. Watson, 766 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir.) (similarity and temporal proximity analysis for prior acts)