The federal appeals court based in Denver has dismissed a man’s challenge to his 2015 murder conviction for pushing his wife off a cliff in Rocky Mountain National Park.

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit rejected Harold Henthorn’s claim that a trial judge inappropriately narrowed his postconviction challenge to a small handful of issues, even though Henthorn argued his defense attorney was ineffective across the board in handling Henthorn’s case.

During the 10-day trial, jurors heard about the circumstances on Sept. 29, 2012, when Henthorn’s wife, Toni, fell to her death in Rocky Mountain National Park. Jurors also learned about two other incidents. First, the year prior to Toni’s death, Henthorn threw a heavy beam off a deck he was repairing at the couple’s vacation cabin, which struck Toni in the neck. In addition, Henthorn’s first wife, Lynn, died in 1995 while she and her husband were changing a tire on the side of a Douglas County road. She was crushed under the vehicle and authorities ruled it an accident.

In all instances, the only witness was Henthorn, and there were questions about his behavior and his representation of events.

Case: United States v. Henthorn

Decided: September 5, 2023

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for Colorado

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: Gregory A. Phillips (author)

Jerome A. Holmes

Carolyn B. McHugh

Background: No new trial for man convicted of pushing wife off cliff, judge finds defense was effective

Henthorn appealed his conviction, but did not prevail. Then he filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging one of his attorneys, Craig L. Truman, performed so deficiently to the point of falling below constitutional standards. Henthorn, now representing himself in court, argued Truman took his money and did not prepare a defense.

“During the summer of 2015, Truman continually told me he was preparing a solid defense,” Henthorn wrote. “At the same time Truman constantly requested that I supply him with additional funds for him to do so. However, although he prepared modestly for some cross examinations … he never prepared any actual defense at all.”

U.S. District Court Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson, who presided over the trial, appointed an attorney for Henthorn, who in turn filed more allegations of Truman’s ineffectiveness through failures to object or by mishandling jury issues. Jackson noted very few of those alleged shortcomings related to Henthorn’s original claim. He declined to consider the bulk of the new assertions and found Truman had effectively defended Henthorn.

“There was substantial, even overwhelming, evidence of Mr. Henthorn’s guilt, fueled in significant part by Mr. Henthorn’s inconsistent statements at the time of the incident,” Jackson wrote in 2022.

Henthorn appealed Jackson’s exclusion of the majority of his allegations against Truman, arguing he originally complained about both Truman’s preparation for and his performance at trial.

But a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit explained the new allegations needed to relate back to Henthorn’s original motion, which they did not.

“The Original Motion focuses on Truman’s failure to prepare and present a defense,” wrote Judge Gregory A. Phillips in the Sept. 5 order. All of the claims Jackson declined to consider “amount to a new claim of ineffectiveness or, at the very least, a new theory of ineffectiveness.”

The panel dismissed Henthorn’s appeal.

The case is United States v. Henthorn.