Cameron Henderson a/k/a Cameron Adam Henderson v. State of Mississippi

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2022-KA-00661-COA

CAMERON HENDERSON A/K/A CAMERON APPELLANT
ADAM HENDERSON

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/06/2022
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JAMES T. KITCHENS JR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: CLAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
BY: GEORGE T. HOLMES
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: ALEXANDRA LEBRON
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 12/12/2023
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE WESTBROOKS, P.J., GREENLEE AND McDONALD, JJ.

WESTBROOKS, P.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Dale O’Neal was murdered in his prison cell in the Clay County jail on March 15,

2019. His cellmate, Cameron Henderson, was indicted for first-degree murder pursuant to

Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-19(1)(a) (Supp. 2017). A Clay County Circuit

Court jury found Henderson guilty. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in the custody

of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The trial court denied Henderson’s motion for

judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. Aggrieved, Henderson appeals his

conviction, arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient for a first-degree murder

conviction, and (2) the jury’s verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Finding no
error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. Dale O’Neal was booked into the Clay County jail on March 8, 2019, on a bench

warrant and trespassing charge. He was assigned to Cell N-2 in the north zone, where

misdemeanor offenders are housed. Days later, O’Neal went to court and was set to be

released on March 15, 2019. Mark Gann, an inmate who was also in court with O’Neal,

testified that “[O’Neal] was in a good mood” before and after court because he was finally

going to be released.

¶3. On March 13, 2019, Cameron Henderson was booked in the Clay County jail for

disturbing the peace and misdemeanor shoplifting. He was also assigned to Cell N-2 in the

north zone. O’Neal was his only cellmate.

¶4. Each cell in the north zone was equipped with a pay phone attached to the wall.

According to testimony at trial, inmates are afforded one collect call. After that, they must

set up a personal identification number (PIN) and have money transferred to their books to

make phone calls. It is unclear if Henderson ever received his free call. Ethan O’Brian, an

inmate housed in the north zone at that time, testified that Henderson was “frantic and upset

that the [correctional officers] wouldn’t let him use the phone” on March 14, 2019. O’Brian

said that Henderson yelled and beat on his cell door to get the attention of the guards

throughout the day, and he did not calm down until around dinnertime.

¶5. Henderson’s behavior disturbed several inmates in the north zone. O’Brian said that

2
he had to tell Henderson to calm down because he and his cellmates were trying to watch TV.

Inmates in Cell N-9 told Henderson to “shut the ‘F’ up.” An altercation even ensued between

Henderson and Mario Gill, an inmate in Cell N-1. Nevertheless, several inmates testified that

they never heard any arguments nor saw an altercation specifically between Henderson and

O’Neal. Also, all the Clay County jail officers who testified said they never received any

complaints or grievances regarding issues between O’Neal and Henderson.

¶6. On March 15, 2019, inmates were served breakfast around 4:00 a.m. When asked

about O’Neal’s demeanor that morning, Gann testified that O’Neal was “[h]appy . . . he was

fixing to get out of jail.” A few hours after breakfast, Henderson lightly knocked on

Henderson’s cell door and stated in a “normal” tone that his cellmate had hung himself.

Alarmed, the other inmates in the north zone began kicking and beating against their cell

doors and yelling “man down, man down” to get the guards’ attention.

¶7. Officer Gail Miles was one of the officers on duty that morning. When she heard the

commotion coming from the north zone, she quickly alerted two trustees, Rafeal Hamilton

and Frank Weatherspoon, to assist her. Hamilton testified that when Officer Gail unlocked

Cell N-2, Henderson rushed out, nearly running over Officer Gail. Inside the cell, they

observed O’Neal’s body “slumped over on the floor with the telephone cord wrapped around

his neck.” O’Neal was unresponsive, so Hamilton and Weatherspoon lifted his body,

unwrapped the cord from around his neck, and laid him down on the floor in the hallway.

Officer Gail then called for medical assistance and placed Henderson in a processing cell by

3
himself. She also alerted her chain of command, which included Sergeant Anthony

Cummings, Captain Jeremy Bell, and Major Steven Young. After the paramedics arrived,

they assessed O’Neal’s injuries and contacted the coroner.

¶8. Mississippi Bureau of Investigation (MBI) was assigned to investigate the case, and

MBI Agent Vernon Hathcock served as the lead investigator. Officers from the Clay County

jail took the initial steps in the investigation and remained available to assist MBI. Captain

Bell secured the scene and took pictures of the north zone, the inside of Cell N-2, O’Neal’s

body, and close-up pictures of the injuries to O’Neal’s neck. Sergeant Cummings

interviewed some of the inmates who were in the north zone when the incident occurred. He

also reviewed the surveillance footage and turned it over to Agent Hathcock. Major Young

worked more directly with MBI throughout the investigation. He retrieved a boiled egg from

O’Neal’s sock and a sausage, biscuit, and Bible from O’Neal’s pocket. He also assisted

Agent Hathcock with interviewing and taking pictures of Henderson.

¶9. In his initial statement on the day in question, Henderson said that O’Neal had hung

himself. However, in a subsequent interview conducted the next day, Henderson recounted

a different version of what led to O’Neal’s death. Agent Hathcock and Major Young read

Henderson his Miranda rights,1 which he waived, and they videotaped his new statement.

During this interview, Henderson alleged that while he was asleep on his rack, O’Neal began

pulling at his feet. Then he claimed that O’Neal either attempted to (or did) bite him.

1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).

4
Henderson said that he jumped off of his rack and tried to calm him down, but then O’Neal

tried to put the phone cord around Henderson’s neck. Henderson claimed he reversed the

situation and put the phone cord around O’Neal’s neck, strangled him until he stopped

moving, and then got back in his rack and went to sleep. Major Young testified that during

the second interview, Henderson’s demeanor was “calm, matter of fact.” He also revealed

that Henderson never mentioned O’Neal possessing a weapon or threatening to kill him

before the altercation.

¶10. In an effort to corroborate an alleged physical altercation between Henderson and

O’Neal, Agent Hathcock and Major Young took pictures of Henderson and examined his

body for any marks, scratches, or bruises. Major Young claimed that “generally the day after

. . . bruises are more—they stand out more than they would from initially after an

altercation.” The pictures revealed no marks, scratches, or bruises on Henderson’s face,

neck, arms, or hands that would indicate a physical altercation. Only some redness and

bruising appeared on the back of Henderson’s hands. Major Young testified that after

examining Henderson and reviewing the photos, he did not find any evidence consistent with

someone who was fighting for his life. He also said that in his experience as an investigator,

it is very common for “suspects to change their story once they’ve spoken with investigators

and they hear . . . some of the evidence . . . and then they tend to make their story fit with the

evidence.”

¶11. O’Neal’s body was sent to the Mississippi State Medical Examiner’s Office. Dr.

5
David Arboe performed the autopsy to determine O’Neal’s cause of death and prepared a

report detailing his findings. At trial, Dr. Arboe testified about the process he undertook to

examine O’Neal’s body. He explained the key indicators that differentiate strangulation

autopsies from hanging autopsies. Then he revealed that O’Neal’s head and neck injuries

were consistent with strangulation. Dr. Arboe also testified that he received a statement from

the coroner, a “re-enactment” of how the body was found, and several pictures that were

taken of O’Neal and the telephone cord that was used to strangle him. This evidence further

confirmed that O’Neal’s death was caused by strangulation.

¶12. In addition to the jail officers and the medical examiner, the State also called several

inmates who were housed in the north zone on the day in question. All of them had positive

recollections about O’Neal: Rafael Hamilton described O’Neal as a “happy-go-lucky guy.

. . . [H]e ain’t bring no harm to nobody and nobody never”; Ethan O’Brian said that O’Neal

was “polite” and “stayed to himself”; Justin McNutt said that O’Neal was “humble” and an

“all-around good guy.” Captain Bell said that O’Neal was a “good guy. He was quiet. He

really didn’t bother anybody.”

¶13. At the conclusion of the State’s case-in-chief, Henderson moved for a directed verdict.

The court denied this motion and advised Henderson of his right to testify; however,

Henderson chose not to do so. During jury instructions, Henderson did not seek a lesser-

included-offense jury instruction after being advised by the court. The Clay County Circuit

Court jury ultimately found Henderson guilty of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced

6
to life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. On June

3, 2022, Henderson filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.

The court denied that motion on June 17, 2022. Henderson then filed his notice of appeal

on June 23, 2022.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶14. Rulings on the sufficiency of the evidence are reviewed de novo. Turner v. State, 291

So. 3d 376, 383 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020). In considering whether the evidence is legally

sufficient to sustain a conviction, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the

State and decide if rational jurors could have found the State proved each element of the

crime.” Johnson v. State, 310 So. 3d 328, 331 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). “We are not

required to decide—and in fact we must refrain from deciding—whether we think the State

proved the elements; rather, we must decide whether a reasonable juror could rationally say

that the State did.” Id.; accord Lenoir v. State, 222 So. 3d 273, 279 (¶25) (Miss. 2017).

¶15. Challenges to the rulings on weight of the evidence are reviewed for abuse of

discretion. Bowman v. State, 360 So. 3d 977, 996 (¶69) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022). When

reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, “[o]ur role as [an] appellate court is to

view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and disturb the verdict only when

it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would

sanction an unconscionable justice.” Eaton v. State, 359 So. 3d 1081, 1086-87 (¶22) (Miss.

2023) (quoting Little v. State, 233 So. 3d 288, 289 (¶1) (Miss. 2017)). “A new trial based

7
on the weight of the evidence should be granted only in exceptional cases in which the

evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.” Alvarado v. State, 343 So. 3d 391, 399

(¶26) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) (quoting Clark v. State, 237 So. 3d 844, 847 (¶13) (Miss. Ct.

App. 2017)).

DISCUSSION

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

A. The Weathersby Rule

¶16. Henderson asserts that he was entitled to a directed verdict pursuant to the

“Weathersby rule.” However, after a review of the record, we find that this case does not

meet the requirements for the rule to apply. “The Weathersby rule essentially is a specific

kind of challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.” Figueroa v. State, 337 So. 3d 1104,

1113 (¶30) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Green v. State, 614 So. 2d 926, 932 (Miss. 1992)).

The rule holds:

[W]here the defendant or the defendant’s witnesses are the only eyewitnesses
to the homicide, their version, if reasonable, must be accepted as true, unless
substantially contradicted in material particulars by a credible witness or
witnesses for the state, or by the physical facts or by the facts of common
knowledge.

Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207, 147 So. 481, 482 (1933). “If the Weathersby rule applies

and the defendant’s version affords an absolute legal defense, the defendant is entitled to a

directed verdict of acquittal.” Parvin v. State, 113 So. 3d 1243, 1252 (¶32) (Miss. 2013)

(quoting Green v. State, 631 So. 2d 167, 174 (Miss. 1994)). However, there are limitations

8
to the Weathersby rule, and our Supreme Court has recognized that “it is a rare case that

meets all of the requirements of the Weathersby rule.” McQuarters v. State, 45 So. 3d 643,

650 (¶21) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Sartain v. State, 311 So. 2d 343, 345 (Miss. 1975)). “One

limitation on the Weathersby rule is that it does not apply when the defendant gives

inconsistent accounts of the killing prior to and at trial.” Figueroa v. State, 337 So. 3d 1104,

1113 (¶31) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (emphasis added) (citing Parvin, 113 So. 3d at 1252 (¶34)).

¶17. Here, Henderson gave inconsistent accounts of the murder to the investigators.

Initially, Henderson told the investigators that O’Neal had hung himself with the telephone

cord. However, the next day, Henderson completely changed his story. In his second

interview, Henderson alleged that O’Neal had attacked him and that it was a “life-or-death

situation,” so he strangled O’Neal with the telephone cord in self-defense. These

inconsistent versions given before trial preclude Henderson from invoking the Weathersby

rule.

¶18. Additionally, “Weathersby does not automatically apply when the defendant is the

only eyewitness. Rather, the Court has held that Weathersby has no application where the

defendant’s version is patently unreasonable, or contradicted by physical facts.” Owens v.

State, 269 So. 3d 1280, 1287 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (internal quotation mark omitted)

(citing Jones v. State, 154 So. 3d 872, 878 (¶17) (Miss. 2014)). Both of Henderson’s

versions of O’Neal’s death were substantially contradicted by the medical examiner’s

testimony, photographs of Henderson’s body, and a diagram of the cell. The medical

9
examiner provided detailed testimony about his examination of O’Neal’s injuries and his

conclusions on how his cause of death was consistent with ligature strangulation as opposed

to hanging. After Henderson dropped the hanging theory, he admitted to investigators that

he strangled O’Neal with the telephone cord because O’Neal had attacked him. However,

there was also evidence to disprove this account. The investigators took pictures of

Henderson the day of and the day after the incident. No marks, scratches, or bruises were

on Henderson’s face, neck, arms, or hands. It is quite difficult to believe that Henderson did

not have any injuries on him, yet he claimed that he was in a “life or death situation” and had

to fight for his life. Only bruising was found on his hands, which was consistent with him

strangling O’Neal to death. The diagram of the cell also revealed a discrepancy in

Henderson’s altercation story. Henderson told the investigators that O’Neal was able to

reach the phone from where they were standing near Henderson’s bed. However, the

diagram showed that the distance between the mounted telephone and the bed was “86 inches

or approximately 7 foot, 2 inches.” The telephone was nowhere near the bed, and O’Neal’s

arm could not stretch eighty-three inches from the bed to the phone. Additionally, several

inmates testified that O’Neal was a “polite,” “humble,” “happy-go-lucky guy” who did not

bother anyone and did not have any issues with other inmates.

¶19. Furthermore, Henderson never offered witnesses nor testified to sufficiently establish

his version of the events. Instead, he relies on his unsworn statements to law enforcement

that he made during his second interview. “However, no appellate court in Mississippi has

10
ever held that unsworn statements to law enforcement may be used for purposes of a

Weathersby analysis.” Bartolo v. State, 32 So. 3d 522, 530 (¶31) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). For

all of these reasons, the Weathersby rule is inapplicable in this case.

B. Sufficient Evidence Presented

¶20. Even without the Weathersby rule, Henderson’s argument still fails because sufficient

evidence was presented at trial for a rational juror to find Henderson guilty of first-degree

murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶21. Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-19(1)(a) defines first-degree murder as the

“killing of a human being without the authority of law by any means or in any manner . . .

[w]hen done with deliberate design to effect the death of the person killed.” Accordingly,

to convict Henderson of first-degree murder, the prosecution had to prove that Henderson

(1) killed O’Neal (2) without authority of law (3) but with the deliberate design to effect his

death. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(1)(a). It is undisputed that Henderson strangled O’Neal;

therefore, we will address the remaining two elements.

¶22. Regarding the second element, Henderson argues that the State failed to prove that he

did not act in self-defense. “However, this Court has held the issue of justifiable self-defense

presents a question of the weight and credibility of the evidence rather than sufficiency and

is to be decided by the jury.” Eaton v. State, 359 So. 3d 1081, 1086 (¶22) (Miss. 2023)

(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Newell v. State, 175 So. 3d 1260, 1268 (¶6)

(Miss. 2015)). Accordingly, we will address this issue below concerning the weight of the

11
evidence.

¶23. Regarding the third element, Henderson argues that since the State failed to prove

deliberate design, the appropriate conviction should have been manslaughter. “Deliberate

design connotes an intent to kill.” Holliman v. State, 178 So. 3d 689, 698 (¶19) (Miss. 2015).

Our Supreme Court “has held that ‘unless one expresses his intent, the only method by which

intent may be prove[d] is by showing the acts of the person involved at the time, and by

showing the circumstances surrounding the incident.’” Id. (quoting Morris v. State, 748 So.

2d 143, 147 (¶17) (Miss. 1999)). Additionally, our Court has held:

The essence of the required intent is that the accused must have had some
appreciable time for reflection and consideration before committing the fatal
act. Deliberate design to kill a person may be formed very quickly, and
perhaps only moments before the act of consummating the intent.
Furthermore, deliberate design may be inferred through the intentional use of
any instrument which, based on its manner of use, is calculated to produce
death or serious bodily injury.

Ashmore v. State, 302 So. 3d 707, 714 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Parvin v. State,

212 So. 3d 863, 868 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)).

¶24. Here, Henderson used a telephone cord to strangle O’Neal and held it there until he

stopped breathing. The evidence presented showed that Henderson had both a weight and

age advantage over O’Neal.2 Even if Henderson did not originally intend to kill O’Neal, it

was reasonable for the jury to conclude that during the time he overpowered O’Neal and

2
Henderson was twenty years old and weighed 160 pounds, while O’Neal was fifty-
four years old and weighed 150 pounds.

12
strangled him to death, he formed the requisite intent to kill O’Neal. See Alvarado v. State,

343 So. 3d 391, 397 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022). After all, “[d]eliberate design to kill a

person may be formed very quickly, and perhaps only moments before the act of

consummating the intent.” Ashmore, 302 So. 3d at 714 (¶20). Intent can also be inferred

from the fact that Henderson did not try to call out for help when he saw that O’Neal was no

longer moving. Instead, he left O’Neal’s body with the telephone cord around his neck, got

back in his rack, and went to sleep.

¶25. Additionally, Henderson’s multiple statements to investigators regarding O’Neal’s

death presented conflicting evidence to the jury. “This conflicting evidence was for the

jury’s consideration and determination on the question of Henderson’s intent.” Christian v.

State, 207 So. 3d 1207, 1218 (¶50) (Miss. 2016). It is not our role to make an independent

resolution; rather, it was solely up to the jury to resolve this conflict and determine if

Henderson intended to kill O’Neal. Considering the multiple versions of the incident,

coupled with all the evidence the State presented, a reasonable jury could rationally conclude

that Henderson killed O’Neal with the deliberate design to effect O’Neal’s death.

¶26. Accepting all the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we find that a rational

juror could have found that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Henderson killed

O’Neal with deliberate design.

II. Weight of the Evidence

¶27. Henderson also asserts that the trial court erred by denying his alternative motion for

13
a new trial because his conviction was contrary to the weight of the evidence. We disagree.

¶28. “It is well established that the jury determines matters of weight, credibility, and

conflicting evidence.” Beasley v. State, 362 So. 3d 112, 126 (¶50) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023)

(citing McCool v. State, 328 So. 3d 173, 184-85 (¶47) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021)). “[W]e do not

reweigh evidence. We do not assess the witnesses’ credibility. And we do not resolve

conflicts between evidence. Those decisions belong solely to the jury.” Little, 233 So. 3d

at 289 (¶1). As previously noted, self-defense is a question of weight and credibility for the

jury to decide. Eaton, 359 So. 3d at 1089 (¶22). “A successful self-defense argument

requires that the jury believe it was objectively reasonable for the [defendant] to believe he

was in danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm.” Id.

¶29. Henderson’s defense failed likely because he did not provide any evidence that

O’Neal threatened his life or possessed a weapon. The only items recovered from O’Neal

were a Bible, a sausage, a biscuit, and a hard-boiled egg. Henderson claimed that an

altercation between them resulted in a “life or death situation,” but no injuries were found

on Henderson’s body to suggest that he was fighting for his life. In fact, no evidence showed

that an altercation between Henderson and O’Neal had ever even occurred. All the Clay

County jail officers who testified said they never received any complaints regarding issues

between Henderson and O’Neal. Sergeant Cummings testified that when issues exist

between inmates, they can notify correctional officers and fill out a grievance form, which

could lead to inmates being moved to a different cell. Sergeant Cummings said he never

14
received a grievance form from Henderson. Additionally, the inmates who were housed in

the north zone testified that they did not hear nor see an altercation between Henderson and

O’Neal at any point before Henderson killed O’Neal. Most of them said that O’Neal never

had a problem with any inmates and stayed to himself.

¶30. It was ultimately up to the jury to either believe Henderson’s account of the incident

or the abundant evidence and ten witnesses presented by the State. Henderson chose not to

testify or call any witnesses to substantiate his account of O’Neal’s death. The jury simply

did not find Henderson’s self-defense story credible. He gave inconsistent accounts, and the

State provided ample evidence that refuted both of his accounts. Here, we cannot say that

the jury’s verdict was so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow

it to stand would sanction a unconscionable injustice. We find that the trial court did not

abuse its discretion by denying Henderson’s alternative motion for a new trial.

CONCLUSION

¶31. Based on our review of the record, Henderson’s challenges to his conviction are not

persuasive. The evidence presented by the State was sufficient to prove to a rational juror

all three elements of first-degree murder were met beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, the

jury’s verdict was not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The trial court

properly denied Henderson’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and his

alternative motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment of

conviction and sentencing.

15
¶32. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, McDONALD,
LAWRENCE, McCARTY, SMITH AND EMFINGER, JJ., CONCUR.

16