Henderson v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Henderson’s convictions, holding that detectives’ statements encouraging him to tell the truth did not induce his custodial statement with an impermissible hope of benefit. The court also held that any error in excluding Henderson’s testimony about Hill’s statement that he had been to prison was harmless because the testimony was ambiguous, cumulative of more explicit threats, and outweighed by the strong evidence of guilt. The court independently determined that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions.