State v. Henson
2004 WL 2101807, 882 So.2d 670 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, even when the victim has made prior inconsistent statements, if a rational trier of fact could find the victim's trial testimony credible when it is corroborated by physical evidence and police testimony.
Facts:
- Robert Charles Henson and Rhonda Buford met at a drug rehabilitation center and, by August 2001, were living together in a motel room.
- On the evening of August 5, 2001, Henson and Buford drank alcohol and smoked crack cocaine.
- Around 11:00 p.m., Henson gave Buford $10 to purchase more crack cocaine.
- Buford bought the crack but smoked it with a friend and did not immediately return to the motel.
- Buford returned to the motel room between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. on August 6 without the drugs or the money.
- An angry Henson threatened to kill Buford, and during the ensuing struggle, he stabbed her in the right thigh with a steak knife.
- Henson then prevented Buford from seeking medical attention, holding her in the room while she bled.
- The next morning, Henson took Buford to a hospital emergency room for treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Robert Charles Henson with aggravated second degree battery.
- Henson was tried by a six-person jury in a Louisiana trial court.
- The jury found Henson guilty of the responsive verdict of aggravated battery.
- The trial court sentenced Henson to ten years at hard labor.
- Henson, the appellant, was granted an out-of-time appeal to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, arguing insufficiency of the evidence against the State of Louisiana, the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does sufficient evidence exist to support a conviction for aggravated battery when the primary witness, the victim, has made prior inconsistent statements about the incident, but her trial testimony is corroborated by physical evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Gaskins, J.
Yes, sufficient evidence exists to support the conviction. An appellate court's role is not to reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility, but to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the jury heard the victim's testimony and was aware of her prior inconsistent statements, including a letter suggesting the stabbing was accidental. However, her trial testimony detailing the attack was consistent with earlier statements she made to police and was strongly corroborated by physical evidence found in the motel room, such as a broken toilet, bloodstained linens, and the knife hidden under the bed. The defendant's own statements to police, which denied the existence of the knife and the broken toilet, were directly contradicted by this evidence. Therefore, the jury was entitled to find the victim's trial testimony credible and conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Henson committed aggravated battery.
Analysis:
This case serves as a straightforward application of the Jackson v. Virginia standard for sufficiency of the evidence, reinforcing the deep deference appellate courts give to a jury's credibility determinations. It establishes that a victim's prior inconsistent statements or recantations do not automatically render the evidence insufficient for a conviction, particularly in domestic violence contexts where such behavior is common. The ruling emphasizes the critical role of corroborating physical evidence in bolstering a witness's trial testimony, providing a pathway for prosecutors to secure convictions even with witnesses whose credibility may be challenged.
