Harold Roy Hester

Overview

Harold Roy Hester was convicted in Tennessee of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and aggravated arson arising from a fire at a mobile home on December 14, 1999 in McMinn County. A McMinn County grand jury indicted Hester for those offenses. A jury found him guilty on all counts and sentenced him to death for the murder of Charles Haney. The Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the death sentence and affirmed the convictions as modified by its opinion.

Hester and Dora Mae Hester married in 1992 and divorced by mutual agreement after six months following a violent domestic abuse incident. They continued an on-again-off-again relationship after the divorce.

Timeline

• December 14, 1999 — Hester drank beer, returned to a mobile home, held Charles Haney and Dora Mae Hester at knifepoint, bound them with duct tape, doused them and the mobile home with kerosene, disconnected smoke alarms, set the mobile home on fire, and left the victims to die; Charles Haney died in the fire and Dora Mae Hester escaped with severe injuries. Hester surrendered to authorities at approximately 8:00 p.m.
• December 15, 1999 — An autopsy was performed on Charles Haney.
• December 15, 1999 — A blood sample and paperwork accompanying the blood sample were discussed in trial testimony.
• February 22, 2000 — A McMinn County grand jury indicted Hester for aggravated arson, first degree murder, and attempted first degree murder.
• November 13, 2001 — The State filed notice of its intent to seek the death penalty for the murder of Charles Haney.
• March 8, 2005 — Trial commenced with jury selection.
• March 11–12, 2005 — The sentencing phase occurred; the jury sentenced Hester to death for the murder of Charles Haney, and the trial court imposed consecutive sentences for the non-capital convictions.
• March 12, 2005 — Hester was sentenced to death.
• August 12, 2005 — Hester filed a motion for new trial.
• February 16, 2006 — The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing regarding Hester’s attempted first degree murder and aggravated arson convictions and also held a hearing on his motion for new trial regarding his capital conviction and sentence.
• February 5, 2009 — The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion.
• October 5, 2010 — The Tennessee Supreme Court delivered its opinion in State of Tennessee v. H.R. Hester, affirming as modified and upholding the death sentence.
• October 11, 2011 — Hester’s execution date was set by the Tennessee Supreme Court.
• October 25, 2011 — The death sentence was directed to be carried out as provided by law unless otherwise ordered.

Background

Marriage and relationship history

Harold Roy Hester and Dora Mae Hester married in 1992. Their marriage ended by mutual agreement after only six months following a particularly violent domestic abuse incident. They continued contact and an on-again-off-again relationship after the divorce.

Dora Mae Hester met Charles Haney, described as a 74-year-old widower, in 1996. Dora Mae Hester and Haney became friends, and she began stopping by his apartment to assist with household work. In 1997, Dora Mae Hester agreed to help Charles Haney care for himself and maintain his apartment on a more regular basis.

Living arrangements and caregiving

In 1998, when Charles Haney became concerned about being required to move into a nursing home, Dora Mae Hester and Haney decided to change their living arrangements so Dora Mae Hester could become Haney’s full-time caregiver. Dora Mae Hester owned a tract of land and lived in a camper on that property. She permitted one of her daughters to place her mobile home on the same property.

Charles Haney purchased a two-bedroom mobile home placed on Dora Mae Hester’s property approximately twenty-five feet from the other mobile home. Haney moved into one bedroom and Dora Mae Hester moved into the other bedroom on the opposite end. Dora Mae Hester used Haney’s automobile for errands and appointments. They pooled their financial resources. Dora Mae Hester became Haney’s live-in caregiver and cooked his meals, washed his clothes, assisted with bathing, and drove him to doctors. Haney’s mobility was limited and he required a walker; Dora Mae Hester also helped him move about the mobile home.

After Dora Mae Hester moved into Haney’s mobile home, Hester expressed interest in purchasing her camper. Dora Mae Hester permitted Hester to live in the camper while he decided whether to purchase it. After the camper was destroyed by fire, Hester moved into an apartment but was forced to move out when he could not afford rent.

Because Hester faced imminent homelessness, Haney and Dora Mae Hester invited him to stay with them in the mobile home. Beginning in 1999, Hester moved into the mobile home with Haney and Dora Mae Hester. He slept in Dora Mae Hester’s bedroom. On occasion, Hester had sexual relations with Dora Mae Hester. Haney and Dora Mae Hester paid for Hester’s food and cigarettes, and Dora Mae Hester washed his clothes. Hester earned some income from odd jobs but used most earnings to purchase alcohol and drank heavily quite often, with the amount varying depending on his mood. The relationship between Haney and Dora Mae Hester was described as not romantic, but like that of a father and daughter.

Because Haney was becoming increasingly frail, he suggested that Dora Mae Hester and he marry to enable her to continue receiving his pension and other benefits after his death. Hester did not like the idea.

By December 1999, Hester had been living in the mobile home with Haney and Dora Mae Hester for approximately four months.

The offence

Triggering events on December 14, 1999

On December 14, 1999, Hester began drinking beer around 11:00 a.m. He left briefly to clear a fence row for a neighbor. When he returned to the mobile home, Dora Mae Hester asked him to watch Charles Haney while she took one of her daughters shopping. Dora Mae Hester returned around 3:00 p.m. Hester, described as having been drinking “quite a bit,” insisted he wanted more beer. Dora Mae Hester tried to convince him to sleep instead. She left again around 5:00 p.m. to take her daughter on another shopping trip.

Around 5:30 p.m., Tim Lynn, described as Dora Mae Hester’s son-in-law, and Johnny Curtis talked with Hester at Curtis’s garage near Haney’s mobile home. Hester was drinking a 32-ounce beer. He asked to borrow a chain saw and for assistance moving wood. He tried to borrow ten dollars, and both men refused to loan him money. Tim Lynn offered to drive Hester back to the mobile home.

During the ride back to the mobile home, Hester suggested to Tim Lynn that they should kill their wives so they would not have to listen to their “bitching” any more. Tim Lynn did not believe Hester was serious.

Dora Mae Hester returned to the mobile home approximately one-half hour after Hester returned from Curtis’s garage. She prepared hot dogs for dinner, but Hester stated he wanted more beer, not hot dogs. Dora Mae Hester locked the door behind Hester when he left the mobile home and allowed him back in after he knocked on both the front door and the back door. When Hester asked Dora Mae Hester for ten dollars to purchase more beer, she declined to loan him the money because “he had drank enough that day and he didn't need any more beer.”

Threats, binding, and dousing

After Hester left the trailer again, Dora Mae Hester went to Haney’s bedroom to tell him that Hester was angry with her for not lending him ten dollars to buy more beer. Hester re-entered the mobile home while Dora Mae Hester was in Haney’s bedroom. He was carrying a small knife and was very intoxicated.

Hester ordered Haney and Dora Mae Hester into the front room. Using Haney’s walker, Haney was able to get to the recliner. Hester told them “that he was tired of the way he was treated, things were going to change․” He walked up to Haney, held the knife about six inches from Haney’s throat, and said: “[Y]ou old bastard․ I've a good mind to cut your throat.”

While Hester was “cussing and carrying on,” Haney remained absolutely silent.

As Hester threatened Haney, Dora Mae Hester screamed to get her daughter’s attention and tried to escape through the back door. Hester “jerked” her back and threw her behind the love seat. He held the knife to her throat, saying that he “was of a good mind to cut [her] throat.”

After Dora Mae Hester begged Hester not to cut her throat, he ordered her to sit on the love seat and be quiet. Hester obtained a roll of duct tape and ordered Haney to lie face down on the floor with his hands high in the air behind his back. Haney complied. Hester duct-taped Haney’s hands, ankles, and mouth. He then did the same to Dora Mae Hester.

Hester kept “fussing,” saying “they were all going to die that night,” and that he “was going to go tell the law what he ․ was doing.” Haney and Dora Mae Hester continued to lie face down with their bound hands in the air behind their backs. Hester paced around the trailer, talking about how the three of them were going to die and how he was going to tell the police. He sat at the dining table for approximately five minutes before leaving the mobile home.

When Hester returned, he carried a large jug of kerosene. He walked past Haney and Dora Mae Hester and began pouring kerosene in and around Haney’s bedroom. After he poured kerosene throughout the mobile home, Hester poured kerosene on Haney’s face and the rest of his body and then poured kerosene all over Dora Mae Hester. It took approximately five minutes for Hester to pour the kerosene.

Hester disconnected all the smoke alarms in the mobile home. He moved a carrier containing a miniature Dachshund outside the mobile home. During the process, Hester commented, “You little bastard. You haven't done anything.”

After preparing, Hester sat down at the dining table and smoked a cigarette. He continued to tell Haney and Dora Mae Hester he was going to kill them and then tell the police what he had done.

Ignition and leaving victims to die

Hester first attempted to light the kerosene with matches, and then with his cigarette, but failed. He rolled up some newspaper, lit it on fire, and placed the burning newspaper next to the counter. This time the kerosene ignited.

Hester left the mobile home, leaving Haney and Dora Mae Hester behind in the burning mobile home with their ankles and hands bound with duct tape.

Escape by Dora Mae Hester and observed statements

Even though Dora Mae Hester’s mouth was covered with duct tape, she tried to tell Haney that she loved him and appreciated Haney for being so good to her. She told Haney that she hoped to see him again in Heaven and began to pray. As the mobile home filled with smoke, she tried to “scoot” toward the door to escape. Somehow, she escaped from the burning mobile home.

Neighbors and family members found Dora Mae Hester outside on the steps with her clothes on fire. Dora Mae Hester recalled someone touching her and saying, “[m]other, it's me. Don't be afraid. Roll, [m]other, roll, you're on fire.”

After the duct tape was removed from her mouth, Dora Mae Hester blurted out that “H.R. done this to me.” She also stated she could not roll because her hands were duct-taped behind her back. The next thing she remembered was a neighbor pulling off her jeans which were still burning and voices telling her she would be okay.

Just after 7:00 p.m., Kathy Lynn, Dora Mae Hester’s daughter, drove to Tim Curtis’s garage to find her husband. She had her children in the car and was hysterical. Kathy Lynn told her husband that Haney’s mobile home was on fire, someone was trapped inside, and that she was afraid Hester was trying to kill them. Tim Lynn called 9-1-1 and drove his family back to the burning mobile home. He instructed his wife and children to remain in the car with doors locked and then headed to the mobile home. The mobile home’s door had melted and smoke and fire billowed out of the doorway. Tim Lynn saw a body inside and attempted to enter the home. He retreated when a flash of fire burned his face. Tim Lynn and another neighbor agreed Haney was certainly dead and did not attempt to enter while the fire was still raging. Paramedics arrived at the scene.

Dora Mae Hester was transported first by ambulance and then by helicopter to Erlanger Hospital’s burn unit. She drifted in and out of consciousness but recalled paramedics explaining to her what was happening. Her injuries included serious burns leading to a double amputation of her feet and lower legs. She received skin grafts on her arms and across her back and chest. The burns caused significant nerve damage and scarring. Because her injuries were extensive, she was hospitalized in various medical facilities from December 14, 1999 until March 28, 2000.

Surrender and physical evidence recovery

After leaving Dora Mae Hester and Haney to die in the burning mobile home, Hester walked to a neighbor’s house and asked the neighbor to contact the police. He surrendered himself to authorities at approximately 8:00 p.m.

When officers apprehended Hester, they noticed fluid-filled blisters caused by the heat and fire on his left arm. Hester and his clothing smelled strongly of kerosene. Officers recovered from Hester the knife he had used to threaten Dora Mae Hester and Haney.

Autopsy results

An autopsy on Haney was performed on December 15, 1999. The medical examiner concluded Haney died as a result of smoke inhalation and thermal burns, and that thermal burns were the predominant cause of death. The examination determined the kerosene splashed across Haney’s face had ignited, and that Haney was alive when he started burning to death. Haney died with his hands still tied behind his back, and his body fixed in that position.

Investigation and prosecution

Indictment and notice of intent

On February 22, 2000, a McMinn County grand jury indicted Hester for aggravated arson, first degree murder, and attempted first degree murder. The State filed notice of its intent to seek the death penalty for the murder of Charles Haney on November 13, 2001.

Arrest

Hester surrendered at approximately 8:00 p.m. on December 14, 1999 after asking a neighbor to contact the police. Officers noticed blisters on his left arm and that his clothing smelled strongly of kerosene. Officers recovered the knife he had used to threaten the victims.

Trial

Dates and phases

The trial was conducted from March 8, 2005 through March 12, 2005. Jury selection began on March 8, 2005.

After the guilt phase, the jury found Hester guilty of aggravated arson, first degree murder, and attempted first degree murder.

Sentencing phase and verdicts

During the sentencing phase on March 11 and 12, 2005, the State sought the death penalty based on three aggravating circumstances. The jury heard testimony including that of a minister who had regularly visited Hester in prison, one of Hester’s acquaintances, and Hester’s mother, as well as victim impact statements.

The jury unanimously found the existence of two aggravating circumstances in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5) and (14) and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances. The jury sentenced Hester to death for the murder of Charles Haney.

The trial court sentenced Hester to consecutive terms of twenty-five years for attempted first degree murder and twenty years for aggravated arson.

Jury selection procedures and replacement of an ill juror

After the guilt phase, a juror became ill and was taken to the emergency room. The trial court replaced the ill juror with an alternate juror for the sentencing phase. The Tennessee Supreme Court upheld this decision and rejected the claim of error.

Self-representation request and counsel matters

Hester argued that he should have been allowed to represent himself. The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed the issue and concluded the trial court did not commit constitutional error by denying Hester’s request to represent himself. The decision included findings that Hester’s request was not genuine and was part of efforts to manipulate the process to reinstate original lead counsel.

The trial court had removed Hester’s lead counsel due to ongoing delays and appointed new counsel. Hester disliked the new lead attorney, requested she be fired, and requested permission to represent himself. The trial court denied the self-representation request. The trial court later excused the new lead attorney after Hester threatened to have the attorney’s family killed, and appointed original lead counsel to take the case to trial.

The Supreme Court found the trial court erred in its statement that Hester could not represent himself due to lack of understanding of the law, but concluded no error in denying the request based on its finding that Hester’s request to represent himself was not genuine.

Lethal injection protocol challenge

Hester challenged the constitutionality of Tennessee’s lethal injection protocol and argued that the “Lancet study” warranted finding Tennessee’s drug protocol for lethal injections cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court rejected the claim, citing that courts dismissed the study as unreliable.

Other trial matters addressed on appeal

The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed in part and modified in part, and addressed numerous claims including the denial of a continuance request, jury venire selection challenges, exclusion of mitigation evidence, reasonable doubt jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence of premeditation, and other alleged due process errors.

Sentencing

Capital sentence

The jury sentenced Hester to death for the murder of Charles Haney after finding aggravating circumstances in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5) and (14) and finding they outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.

Non-capital sentences and modification on appeal

The trial court sentenced Hester to consecutive twenty-five years for attempted first degree murder and twenty years for aggravated arson.

The Court of Criminal Appeals reduced Hester’s attempted first degree murder sentence from twenty-five years to twenty years because the trial court had considered improper enhancing factors and affirmed in other respects. The Tennessee Supreme Court, after de novo review of the non-capital sentences due to Sixth Amendment sentencing violations, determined that appropriate sentences were twenty years for both attempted first degree murder and aggravated arson, and determined the sentences should be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to the death sentence.

On remand, the trial court was directed to enter a revised judgment imposing consecutive twenty-year sentences for attempted first degree murder and aggravated arson and to direct that these sentences be served consecutively to the death sentence.

Execution date

The Tennessee Supreme Court set Hester’s execution date for October 11, 2011. In the summary conclusion, the death sentence was directed to be carried out as provided by law on the 25th day of October, 2011, unless otherwise ordered by the Court or other proper authority.

Appeals

Court of Criminal Appeals

The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed convictions but reduced the attempted first degree murder sentence from twenty-five years to twenty years and found error in exclusion of certain testimony during sentencing that it held harmless.

Tennessee Supreme Court

The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed convictions and upheld the death sentence. It affirmed the decision to replace a juror during the sentencing phase and rejected Hester’s claim of denial of his right of self-representation. It rejected challenges to lethal injection protocol and multiple other issues, and conducted required proportionality review under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206.

In its review, the Tennessee Supreme Court found:

• The death sentence was not imposed in an arbitrary fashion.
• Evidence supported statutory aggravating circumstances in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5) and (14).
• The evidence supported the jury’s finding that aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances.
• The death sentence was neither excessive nor disproportionate to similar cases.

Outcome

The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed Hester’s convictions for first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and aggravated arson, and affirmed his death sentence. It also affirmed the imposition of consecutive, modified twenty-year sentences for attempted first degree murder and aggravated arson. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including entry of revised judgment imposing consecutive twenty-year sentences served consecutively to the death sentence.

Other details

Trial exchange about evidence smell

During trial, the following exchange occurred about clothing and personal items sealed in new paint cans:

THE COURT: Let's move them into evidence and put them back in the box. They're ․ GENERAL YOUNG: Okay. A [Agent Brakebill]: Yeah. They're stinking pretty bad. THE COURT: They're kind of choking me up. I don't know whether I'll-I think members of the jury too. A [Agent Brakebill]: They've still got kerosene on them. GENERAL YOUNG: Your Honor, we'll, we'll make it a collective exhibit number 11. GENERAL YOUNG: Agent Brakebill, would you mind putting them back in the cans? THE COURT: I can smell the kerosene. It's just ․ (brief pause) ․ we'll just put it all in the box. (Brief pause) Members of the jury, I'm putting these up pretty, I'm putting these up pretty quickly. If you want to see them later, now you'll have a chance to do it. ․ THE COURT: They were closer to you all than there (sic) were to me and I was, I was getting choked up a little bit.

Victim impact and witness references

During sentencing, the jury heard testimony of a minister who had regularly visited Hester in prison, one of Hester’s acquaintances, and Hester’s mother, and it heard three victim impact statements.

Persons named in appellate arguments

The Tennessee Supreme Court opinion identifies counsel and officials involved in the appeal and arguments, including Rich Heinsman and Lee Davis for the appellant, and Robert E. Cooper, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Mark E. Davidson, Senior Counsel; James E. Gaylord, Assistant Attorney General; R. Steven Bebb (on appeal) and Jerry N. Estes (at trial), District Attorneys General; and William W. Reedy, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. It also names Justice William C. Koch, Jr. as the author of the opinion and lists other justices joining the opinion: Cornelia A. Clark, C.J., Janice M. Holder, Gary R. Wade, and Sharon G. Lee, JJ.

Blood sample dispute testimony

In appellate discussion, Agent Barry Brakebill and Special Agent William Barker testified regarding a blood sample taken from Hester and paperwork showing a time. The trial court permitted the State to recall Agent Brakebill after Hester’s cross-examination raised issues about the time of the blood sample. Agent Brakebill testified about the time being partially filled out by Robin Smith, a nurse, and about his memory that the sample was drawn on the night Hester was arrested; he also testified he was not sure of the exact time and that it could have been after midnight on December 15, 1999. Agent Brakebill conceded his only basis for refuting the paperwork time was memory more than five years earlier and that he never filed any document amending or correcting the date and time record on the paperwork.