3rd Circuit mulls stay order in Greenhouse case

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is considering a motion seeking an emergency review and/or stay order in the murder trial of Norris Greenhouse Jr.

Defense attorney George Higgins III filed the motion in response to 12th Judicial District Judge William “Billy” Bennett’s denial of Higgins’ motions to prevent prosecutors from relying on the laws of “principal” and “transferred intent” in their case against Greenhouse.

Greenhouse is charged with 2nd degree murder of 6-year-old Jeremy Mardis and attempted 2nd degree murder of Christopher Few, who were shot following a traffic stop on Nov. 3, 2015 on a deadend street in Marksville.

Greenhouse and fellow Marksville City Marshal’s deputy Derrick Stafford fired a combined total of 18 bullets into Few’s vehicle. Stafford was tried on the same charges as Greenhouse, but was convicted in March of manslaughter and sentenced to 40 years in prison.

Greenhouse’s trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 2. That date could be rescheduled if the appeals court grants the request for a stay order.

'PRINCIPAL' AND 'TRANSFERRED INTENT'

Under the law of “principal,” a person who participates or supports a criminal act is just as responsible as a participant that actually commits that crime.

“Transferred intent” simply means that if a person intended to kill one person but killed someone else instead, the “intent to kill” required by law is transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim.

In his motion, Higgins contends that “multiple ballistics reports now show that each and every bullet recovered from each victim matched the gun of Derrick Stafford. Not a single bullet recovered from the deceased or Christopher Few traces back to Norris Greenhouse Jr.”

Prosecutors have said that forensic analysis matched 14 shell casings to Stafford’s pistol and four to Greenhouse’s. All but two bullets recovered from the victims were matched to Stafford’s gun. Those two bullets, one from Few and one from Mardis, were too badly damaged to be matched to either firearm.

Higgins said prosecutors contend that it “matters not that Mr. Greenhouse’s weapon caused no injury, he is just as liable as Stafford for the shooting of Jeremy Mardis and Christopher Few” because they are relying on the laws of principal and transferred intent.

In arguing against Bennett’s ruling, Higgins contends that an alleged principal must have had the “intent for the crime they are charged as principals.”

He concedes the state’s position that courts have held that “specific intent to kill can be gathered from the act of pointing a gun and firing it at a person.” However, he counters that “is a dangerous line of reasoning” when applied to law enforcement officers.

'FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR'

“Under the state’s reasoning, any officer who fires his weapon can be charged with murder regardless of whether their gun caused any harm, regardless of their intent, so long as another officer present committed a crime,” Higgins wrote.

He said this “is fundamentally unfair to law enforcement officials, who are put in dangerous situations that require protecting fellow officers as part of their job.”

He maintains the doctrine of “transferred intent” should not be allowed because none of Greenhouse’s bullets struck either victim.

“Allowing the state to expose Mr. Greenhouse to a potential life sentence simply because he fired his weapon is wrong, and will subject other officers to similar treatment in the future,” Higgins wrote.

The attorney noted these legal principles have been successfully used to “convict gang members who order a shot fired, or patrons of a bar who shoot simultaneously at a person.”

However, he added, “its use against police officers is scant” and he has not been able to find a Louisiana case in which the “law of principal was used to convict a policeman of murder.”