Henry v. State

The trial court erred in allowing the state to argue during the sentencing phase that the defendant deserved death because he posed a future danger to those in prison where the state based its argument solely on the defendant's conduct in the present case.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

After pleading guilty to murder and related crimes, Keith Darnel Henry waived the right to have a jury determine his sentence. The trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Henry committed the murder while engaged in burglary, armed robbery and kidnapping with bodily injury.1 Based on that finding, the trial court sentenced him to death, and Henry appeals.2 Because the trial court erred in allowing the State to make unsupported allegations that Henry posed a future danger, we reverse. The evidence presented at the bench trial showed that Henry and his wife gained entry into the home of Sheila Dates and her daughter by impersonating FBI agents. Once inside the residence, they bound both women, taped the younger victim’s mouth, and then began questioning Dates regarding the safe at the check cashing business where she worked. Because the procedure for opening the safe proved to be more complicated than anticipated, Henry directed his wife to take Dates to the business while he remained in the residence. He told Dates that he would merely hold her daughter as a hostage. However, Henry admitted in his post-arrest confession that he strangled her to death just fifteen minutes after his wife and Dates left the house.

While attempting to open the safe, Dates was told that she was chosen as a victim because she had no husband and was, therefore, “more vulnerable” than her co-worker. Once the safe was opened, she was bound and gagged with a plastic bag. After speaking with her husband by phone, Henry’s wife strangled Dates with a rope. However, she survived the attack, and called for help when she regained consciousness.

Henry v. State

The trial court erred in allowing the state to argue during the sentencing phase that the defendant deserved death because he posed a future danger to those in prison where the state based its argument solely on the defendant's conduct in the present case.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report