Judge excludes bathroom replica in trial of Lexington woman accused of murdering husband
Prosecutors were forced to change the presentation in their case against a woman accused of murdering her husband after a Lexington judge ruled Tuesday they could not present a piece of “critical” evidence — a full-sized replica of the couple’s home bathroom they say can disprove the defense’s claims of an accidental death.
It was a “slap in the face” to the family of Leon Dewayne Hignite, who died in September 2017, according to the Hignites’ children, who firmly believe their mother killed their father.
His wife, Carol Ann Hignite, 76, is charged with his murder, neglect of an elderly person and arson.
Prosecutors claim Hignite bludgeoned her husband with a hammer, left him to die for three days and set fire to their home as police were investigating.
Defense attorneys argue Leon Hignite was medically frail and prone to falls. They say he fell in the bathroom and hit his head repeatedly, causing his fatal injuries. Carol Hignite told police during her interrogation that her husband fell and left blood all over the bathroom.
She admitted she cleaned the blood up, worried that company may come back the home. She immediately gave the bathroom’s dimensions — 32 inches wide and 45 inches deep — to the officers, which struck them as odd.
This is the second time Hignite has been tried for her husband’s murder. The first trial in December 2022 resulted in a mistrial. During that trial the jurors were allowed to visit the scene at the Holly Springs home.
Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorneys Kathryn Schafer and Nickolas Fegenbush said the dimensions of the bathroom were entirely too small to support the claim that Leon Hignite received his injuries by falling in the bathroom the way the defense claimed.
“The reality is without physically seeing it, there can be no comprehension of just how critical the dimensions are to the case,” the prosecutors wrote in a motion.
They believe it is “impossible for the victim to self-inflict injuries of the magnitude that caused his death.” They said pictures do not reflect the small size of the bathroom.
In January 2024, Minnifield ruled the jurors would not be allowed to visit the scene. She felt there was sufficient evidence and visual aides that could be presented without taking jurors to the home. Minnifield said prosecutors could find another way to show an aide to the jurors just a few weeks ago.
Prosecutors were forced to pivot despite more than one attempt to have Minnifield reconsider her motion. They opted to pay out of their own pocket and spend their time building the structure. They also included three-dimensional photos.
When the time came on Tuesday afternoon to present the evidence, defense attorney Ben Church said the “exhibits must be excluded” from being seen by the jury.
He said the evidence was being presented in “the 11th hour” and the defense did not have time to properly inspect either exhibit to determine if they were a fair and accurate representation of the bathroom inside the home.
“We are in a retrial, and we are just seeing this,” Church said. “We are seeing (the building) a handful of minutes before introducing it to a jury and we found out they were building it the eve of the trial. This is a violation of due process.”
Minnifield ruled against allowing the evidence to be seen by jurors Tuesday afternoon. She agreed with the defense that the timing of the evidence’s presentation was done at the last minute and was unfair to the defendant.
Her decision incensed the prosecution and Hignite’s family, who became visibly upset inside the courtroom.
Fegenbush said prosecutors were required by the court to do something different by building the visual aid, and it was entirely legal to present it as evidence. Minnifield’s ruling, they said, was a “slap in the face to the timing” to not allow it.
“It’s not at the 11th hour — this is the 12th hour, this is the stroke of midnight — and that is a slap in the face to time,” Fegenbush said.
Schafer told the judge the ruling was unfair.
“It is unfair to the commonwealth, and unfair to the victims in the case whose father died,” she said. “It is unfair that we are not allowed to present evidence that what (Carol Hignite) is saying is not true.”
Jason Hignite, the Hignites’ son said the ruling was “wishy washy,” which he felt was par for the course of how the case has unfolded for the past seven years.
The children believe it is imperative that a jury see the bathroom.
Karen Hignite, Jason’s wife, said it was a slap in the face.
“It’s like Dewayne’s death meant nothing,” she said. “It wouldn’t have hurt at all.”
