Charles Edward Henry v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Dec 14 2015, 8:41 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kristin A. Mulholland Gregory F. Zoeller
Appellate Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Crown Point, Indiana
James B. Martin
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Charles Edward Henry, December 14, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
45A03-1504-CR-121
v. Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court.
State of Indiana, The Honorable Diane Ross Boswell,
Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 45G03-1306-MR-6
Friedlander, Senior Judge
[1] Charles Edward Henry appeals his convictions of murder, a felony, and
stalking, a Class D felony. He claims that the trial court should not have
admitted into evidence an autopsy photograph of the murder victim. We
affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1504-CR-121 |December 14, 2015 Page 1 of 9
[2] Henry had been in a relationship with Brittany Peters but it ended. They had a
child together, N.H. In addition, although their relationship had ended, Peters
was taking care of Henry’s child, C.H. Peters and the children lived in an
apartment in Crown Point, Indiana. Peters was the only leaseholder on the
apartment. Henry’s mother, Yvonne Henry, lived near Peters’ apartment in the
same apartment complex.
[3] On May 12, 2013, officers were dispatched to Peters’ apartment on a report of
criminal trespass. When the officers arrived, Henry and Peters were present.
Peters wanted Henry to return his key to her apartment and to leave. Henry
handed her a key, but it was not the correct key. When Peters demanded the
correct key, Henry fled to Yvonne’s apartment. Officers chased him into the
apartment and arrested him. After the arrest, Henry moved in with his mother.
He later went to Texas and did not return to Indiana until June 2013.
[4] On June 3, 2013, Henry posted an e-card on his Facebook page. The card,
which did not have any recipient’s name, stated “I hate you so much that
sometimes I watch CSI just to get pointers on how to kill you without actually
getting caught.” State’s Ex. 204.
[5] After returning to Indiana on June 8, 2013, Henry contacted Peters through text
messages and private messages sent through Facebook. On June 9, 2013,
Peters told Henry she was pursuing a relationship with another man. Henry
responded with a long string of messages, including repeated pleas to take him
back. He said, “We are not promise [sic] tomorrow you are going to regret
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1504-CR-121 |December 14, 2015 Page 2 of 9
this.” State’s Ex. 228. He also said, “I can’t be without you please come back
to me.” State’s Ex. 226, p. 16. Thirty minutes later, he sent a message stating,
“The way you do things is going to get somebody really hurt or killed it’s so
easy just to pick up the phone and talk.” Id.
[6] On June 10, 2013, Henry sent Peters the following message:
So it want [sic] be a big deal you know like me going crazy
because I will be real hurt and probably can’t deal with it ain’t no
telling what I will do so why I’m in a down mood tell me because
people get hurt over this stuff love can make you do some good
thing or bad my heart is for you and always will be and always
have been but once it go boom I can’t help who every [sic] in my
way because it want [sic] be good.
Id. at 18. On the same day, he sent her a text message stating, “Playing around
with people [sic] feelings gets people killed.” State’s Ex. 227.
[7] On June 11, 2013, Henry instructed Peters to tell him if she planned to go
somewhere after she left work and said that she should “take into consideration
about my feelings what you wear.” Id. On June 13, 2013, Henry sent this
message to Peters: “This is going to come out real bad for somebody either me
or you it’s just not going to end good at all.” Id. at 22-23.
[8] Henry spent the night of June 14, 2013, at Peters’ apartment. On June 15,
2013, Henry was still there. He was supposed to pack C.H.’s clothing so that
she could move away with him. Instead, Henry again asked Peters if they
could reconcile. She refused and told him to go to Yvonne’s apartment. Henry
was initially calm but then “started up yelling.” Tr. p. 44. C.H., who was
eight, saw him go into the kitchen and come out holding a “butcher knife”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1504-CR-121 |December 14, 2015 Page 3 of 9
behind his back. Id. at 45. N.H., who was seven, also saw Henry holding a
knife behind his back. Henry went into Peters’ bedroom with her and closed
the door. N.H. heard Peters scream, and C.H. heard Peters shout, “Get off of
me.” Id. at 57. N.H. banged on the door to the bedroom, but Henry told them
to go to Yvonne’s apartment.
[9] C.H. and N.H. ran to their grandmother’s apartment. They told Yvonne,
“Daddy had a knife.” Id. at 187. After Yvonne calmed them down, she went
over to Peters’ apartment, leaving the children at her home. When she arrived,
she rang a buzzer for five minutes before Henry responded, using the intercom.
He allowed her into the apartment. Yvonne saw that he was bleeding. Henry
told her that Peters was in the bedroom. She went to the bedroom and saw
Peters laying on the floor, face up. Peters’ eyes were open. Yvonne called 911.
During the call, Henry said he was leaving. Yvonne told Henry, “You need a
hospital. They’re gonna find you. Where are you going?” Id. at 183.
[10] Police were dispatched to Peters’ apartment, where Yvonne was waiting for
them. When the officers entered the apartment, they saw blood spattered on a
wall and dishwasher in the kitchen next to the front door, blood on the living
room floor outside the kitchen, and a blood trail leading to a bedroom.
[11] A pool of blood was on the floor just inside the bedroom. Henry and Peters
were in the room. Peters was laying on the floor, face up, with a large knife in
her hand. The blade of the knife was facing upward, toward her face. Peters’
eyes were open, but she did not appear to be breathing. Henry was seated on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1504-CR-121 |December 14, 2015 Page 4 of 9
the floor, leaning up against the bed. He was bleeding. There were spatters of
blood in the nearby bathroom.
[12] Paramedics and fire personnel arrived and examined Peters and Henry. He was
“covered in blood” and was slow to respond to questions, but he was breathing
well. Id. at 228. Henry had a laceration on his left wrist, two puncture wounds
on his chest, and three puncture wounds on his neck. None of the puncture
wounds was any bigger in diameter than a pencil. The wrist laceration was
bleeding more heavily than the puncture wounds, but was not “terribly deep”
because it did not expose tissues or tendons. Id. at 232. The paramedics took
Peters and Henry to the hospital. Peters was pronounced dead at the hospital.
At the hospital, it was discovered that Henry also had a laceration to his neck.
[13] Meanwhile, the children left Yvonne’s apartment and went outside to watch the
emergency responders. A neighbor saw the children and brought them into her
apartment. One of the children told the neighbor, “Daddy stabbed Mommy.”
Id. at 276.
[14] During an autopsy of Peters’ body, the examiner found four stab wounds and
one cut wound. The stab wounds were in the left shoulder, left chest, right
chest, and the right side of the chest wall. The left shoulder stab wound entered
the chest cavity, fractured a rib, and lacerated the left lung. That wound was
four to five inches deep. The left chest stab wound severed the pulmonary
artery, which provides blood to the lungs, and extended eight inches through
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1504-CR-121 |December 14, 2015 Page 5 of 9
Peters’ torso and out of her back. The right chest stab wound perforated the
liver.
[15] DNA testing was performed on several items the police found at the apartment.
Both Peters’ and Henry’s blood was found on the knife.
[16] The State charged Henry with murder, stalking, and harassment. The case was
tried to a jury. Henry claimed self-defense. Specifically, he asserted that he
grabbed the butcher knife after Peters attacked him with a smaller knife, and
that she later picked up the butcher knife and he stabbed her with that knife as
they struggled. The State offered, among other exhibits, multiple photographs
from Peters’ autopsy. Henry objected to Exhibit 81, an autopsy photograph
that depicted the interior of Peters’ chest cavity with all of the organs removed.
Henry asserted the photograph was grotesque and would result in prejudice.
The State responded that the photograph, which showed a wound to the
interior of Peters’ back, was necessary to display the nature and extent of her
stab wounds. The trial court overruled Henry’s objection.
[17] The jury determined that Henry was guilty as charged. The court declined to
enter a judgment of conviction on the harassment charge and imposed a
sentence for the other two crimes. This appeal followed.
[18] Henry raises one issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion by
admitting Exhibit 81. The admission of a photograph is reviewed on appeal for
an abuse of discretion. Ward v. State, 903 N.E.2d 946 (Ind. 2009). Generally, a
photograph that depicts a victim’s injuries or demonstrates the testimony of a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1504-CR-121 |December 14, 2015 Page 6 of 9
witness is admissible. Id. An autopsy photograph that depicts the body in an
altered state may be inadmissible, but specific situations may arise in which the
manipulation of a corpse is necessary to illustrate witness testimony. Jackson v.
State, 973 N.E.2d 1123 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. The photograph
must be relevant, and its relevance must not be “substantially outweighed” by
the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. Ind. Evid. Rule 403.
[19] The State bore the burden of proving its case and of disproving Henry’s claim of
self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Exhibit 81 was relevant to establish the
nature and extent of Peters’ wounds. The photograph illustrated the medical
examiner’s testimony, who used the photo to inform the jury as follows:
This is the back side of the inside [sic] the chest cavity. You see
the inside chest cavity is here. This large blood vessel go [sic] in.
That’s why this wound here that pass [sic] through, that’s why to
come to [sic] front here, almost pass through the back.
Tr. p. 332. Exhibit 81 was the only autopsy photograph that indicated to the
jury the size of the knife that penetrated Peters’ torso and went through her
back.
[20] The size of the wound was relevant because Henry testified that Peters initially
attacked him with a small knife, and he defended himself by picking up the
bigger butcher knife and “swinging” it at Peters. Id. at 701. He further testified
that after he put the knife down, she picked it up, and the two of them wrestled
with it, during which time she sustained her fatal injuries. Exhibit 81 showed
the jury how deeply the stab wound went, establishing that the butcher knife,
rather than a smaller knife, caused the injury. The photograph also supported
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1504-CR-121 |December 14, 2015 Page 7 of 9
the State’s argument that Henry was not defending himself when he stabbed
Peters because he had to use a degree of force greater than merely wrestling
with Peters to thrust the knife through her torso. Id. at 757-58 (“That’s not two
people fighting over a knife. That is one man using all of his strength . . .”).
[21] In addition, we cannot conclude that the prejudice resulting from displaying the
gruesome photo substantially outweighed its probative value. The removal of
the organs from Peters’ chest cavity was necessary to display the depth and size
of the wound to Peters’ back. See Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670 (Ind. 2013)
(autopsy photos displaying the skin pulled back from a damaged skull were
admissible because the manipulation of the corpse was necessary to
demonstrate the specific injury to the jury, and the relevance outweighed any
prejudice). Also, the autopsy report was admitted into evidence. The report
indicated that the medical examiner, not Henry, was responsible for the
manipulation of the corpse. See Griffin v. State, 16 N.E.3d 997 (Ind. Ct. App.
2014) (autopsy photograph was admissible because the medical examiner
testified that he, not the defendant, manipulated the victim’s wounds).
[22] Henry argues that our Supreme Court’s decision in Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d
622 (Ind. 2002), requires us to reverse the trial court, but that case is
distinguishable on its facts. In Corbett, the Court determined that the trial court
should have excluded autopsy photographs that focused on the “hollow shell”
of the body and were not material to the case. Id. at 628. By contrast, Exhibit
81 was necessary to display the nature and extent of the stab wound to Peters’
back. See Jackson, 973 N.E.2d 1123 (autopsy photograph showing victim’s heart
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1504-CR-121 |December 14, 2015 Page 8 of 9
was necessary to illustrate the extent of the stab wound and was not duplicative
of other photographs).
[23] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[24] Judgment affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1504-CR-121 |December 14, 2015 Page 9 of 9