Judge reaffirms Hempfield man's attempted-murder conviction
A Westmoreland County judge ruled Thursday that jurors were right to convict a Hempfield man for attempted murder for shooting his former girlfriend in 2011
Lawrence Darnell Redman is serving a 20- to 40-year prison sentence for firing four shots at Anna Marie Henderson outside her mother's Salem Township home on Sept. 24, 2011.
His conviction should stand, Judge John Blahovec said in a five-page ruling.
Redman, 45, testified that he did not intend to hurt Henderson and that he only fired the shots as a warning to his girlfriend.
Jurors heard evidence that Redman fired a .380-caliber semiautomatic pistol at close range as Henderson got out of a car in which she was sleeping.
Henderson was shot in the finger, forearm, chest and left side of her abdomen. She is paralyzed from the waist down and must use a wheelchair, she told jurors.
Henderson testified that she and Redman sporadically argued during a night out at three bars and again later at Wal-Mart in Hempfield. The jury saw a security video from the store parking lot that showed Henderson refuse to let Redman in her car before she drove away. Redman could be seen on the video.
Blahovec said jurors had sufficient evidence to convict Redman and wrote that “it is a well settled legal principle that the intentional use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of another person's body may establish a specific intent to kill.”
During his sentencing hearing, the judge said he hoped that Redman served every day of the 40-year maximum sentence that was imposed.
Rich Cholodofsky is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.