Greenhouse defense claims none of his bullets struck victims

Murder trial postponed to Oct. 2; motion hearings set for June 12

When Norris Greenhouse Jr. goes to trial for murder on Oct. 2, jurors will be told there is no evidence that any bullet from his gun struck another human on the night of Nov. 3, 2015.

Several defense motions were heard by 12th Judicial District Judge Billy Bennett on May 2. Most met without objection from the prosecutors, including a motion to delay the trial from June 12 to Oct. 2 and to schedule another hearing on defense and prosecution motions for June 12.

Greenhouse is charged with the 2nd degree murder of 6-year-old Jeremy Mardis and the attempted murder of the child's father, Christopher Few, following a Nov. 3, 2015 traffic stop. Greenhouse was on duty as a Marksville City Marshal's deputy when he initiated a pursuit of Few, apparently for a traffic violation.

The slow-speed chase covered about two miles through Marksville, at speeds of 30 mph or less, and ended at the dead-end of Martin Luther King Drive. Greenhouse was joined by two other deputy marshals and a Marksville P.D. officer at the scene.

Greenhouse and fellow-deputy Derrick Stafford fired 18 bullets into Few's vehicle. Forensic analysis of shell casings matched 14 to Stafford's firearm and four to Greenhouse's.

Stafford was convicted of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter in March.

CONSOLIDATED MOTION

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the hour-long hearing was the “sneak preview” of a key element of Greenhouse’s defense. Defense attorney George Higgins consolidated three motions into one -- a motion to prohibit the state from using the doctrine of transferred intent, another to prohibit using or referring to the law of principal and a third to quash the indictment for 2nd degree murder and attempted 2nd degree murder.

“Transferred intent” is the law that says if a person has an intent to kill one person but kills someone else due to that action, the “intent to kill” transfers from the intended victim to the actual victim. In short, the killer cannot claim he did not have intent to kill the dead person because he meant to kill the other person.

The “law of principal,” as it would apply in this case, states that a person participating in an act in which another participant kills someone is just as guilty of the crime as if he had fired the fatal bullets.

In his motion, Higgins said the facts of this case are such that neither legal principle applies.

Higgins called three witnesses, all law enforcement investigators who worked on the analysis of evidence in the case.

To each witness, he asked, “Is there any evidence that any bullet from Norris Greenhouse Jr.’s gun” struck either Jeremy or Few? All three said that none of the identifiable bullets in Few or Jeremy were from Greenhouse’s gun.

2 ‘UNMATCHED' BULLETS

Assistant Attorney General Matthew Derbes pointed out each time that a bullet taken from Jeremy’s head and fragments of a bullet from Few’s head were too damaged to be matched to either of the two firearms that fired that night.

“Can either bullet be excluded from Greenhouse’s Glock?” Derbes would ask. “No,” was always the answer.

Derbes showed more emotion than he did during most of his comments during the Stafford trial.

Apparently perturbed by Higgins’ remarks that there is no evidence that Greenhouse fired at the occupants in the car, Derbes asked State Police investigator Ronald Beeson if he had watched a body camera video of the shooting incident.

Beeson said he had watched the entire video “several times.”

In rapid fire order, Derbes asked a series of questions, pausing only long enough for the one-word answer, “Yes,” before going on to the next question.

“Can you see Norris Greenhouse in that video? Was he pointing at the driver side of the car? Could you see muzzle flashes from his gun, even after Christopher Few’s hands were raised?”

Derbes concluded that while there is no conclusive evidence that one or both of the unmatched bullets was fired by Greenhouse, there is “overwhelming circumstantial evidence” that one or both of the bullets in question came from his gun.

STATE'S MOTION

The state’s main motion -- to introduce evidence of past actions by Greenhouse -- will be heard on June 12.

The state’s motion contends that Greenhouse has had a pattern of using his position as a law enforcement officer to “satisfy his sexual desires.” It includes several examples, including allegations that Few’s then-girlfriend Megan Dixon was an object of those desires.

Higgins criticized the motion as unsubstantiated accusations.

On another defense motion, Bennett said he would consider later whether to allow the trial jury to view the scene.

Assistant Attorney General John Sinquefield said he has no personal objection to a site visit, but does not believe it would be very beneficial to jurors. He pointed out there is a memorial to Jeremy Mardis at the site, with Teddy bears and flowers. He said there is a change in vegetation from almost two years ago and the conditions under which the jurors would see the scene would be greatly different from those of the night of the shooting.

The state Attorney General’s Office is handling the prosecution of this case, as it did the Stafford trial, because the Avoyelles District Attorney’s Office recused itself due to the fact that Greenhouse’s father is an assistant district attorney.

AVOYELLES JOURNAL
BUNKIE RECORD
MARKSVILLE WEEKLY

105 N Main St
Marksville, LA 71351
(318) 253-9247

CONTACT US