Johnson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-01176-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-03-2009 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Depraved-heart murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Self-defense Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND MAXWELL, JJ. Dissenting Author : LEE, P.J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : MYERS, P.J., IRVING AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Motion for Rehearing Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-06-2008 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Krebs Disposition: CONVICTED OF DEPRAVED-HEART MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Anthony N. Lawrence, III Case Number: 2004-10,118(1) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JOHN EDWARD JOHNSON |
LESLIE S. LEE,
HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LISA BLOUNT | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Depraved-heart murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Self-defense |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Johnson was convicted of depraved-heart murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Johnson argues that the evidence was legally insufficient, and that the State failed to prove that he did not act in self-defense. The jury was instructed on deliberate-design murder, depraved-heart murder, and manslaughter, as well as self-defense. The jury convicted Johnson of depraved heart murder. However, it is clear from the record, that the jury had some difficulty arriving at that decision. After three and one-half hours of deliberations, the jury sent out a question to the trial judge, asking, “[w]hat is the legal difference between depraved-heart murder and manslaughter?” The trial judge determined that the jury instructions were adequate to explain the legal difference to the jury, so he instructed the jurors to continue their deliberations. The chief distinction between murder and manslaughter is the presence of deliberation and malice in murder and its absence in manslaughter. Also, manslaughter by culpable negligence is distinguished from depraved-heart murder by the degree of mental culpability of a defendant. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational juror could not have concluded that all of the elements of murder were satisfied and have found Johnson guilty of depraved-heart murder. All of the eyewitnesses testified that Johnson did not seek out the victim. Rather, testimony established that he wanted to avoid the victim on that day and all other days. All of the eyewitnesses presented by the defense and the State indicated that Johnson was attempting to drive away when the incident occurred. Although the record does not indicate how long the argument between the victim and Johnson lasted before Johnson shot the victim, it appears from the record that it all transpired within a short period of time. Clearly, there was no premeditated or deliberate design by Johnson to effect the victim’s death, nor does the record indicates that Johnson’s actions rise to the level of evincing a depraved heart. In order for a crime to be reduced from murder to manslaughter, circumstances must exist that would rouse a normal mind to the extent that the reason is overthrown and that passion usurps the mind destroying judgment. The State argues that Johnson’s past relationship with the victim and the shooting incident three months earlier were insufficient for the jury to infer that Johnson’s passions were aroused to the point that his reason was overthrown and that passion usurped the mind destroying judgment. The explosive events in this case were undoubtedly fueled by resentment and fear. From the facts, it is conclusive that Johnson believed, possibly an unreasonable belief, that he was in immediate danger of suffering great bodily harm or death at the hands of the victim. The proper remedy is to reverse and render for re-sentencing for manslaughter under the direct-remand rule. Issue 2: Self-defense When the jury found that the defendant was guilty of murder, it necessarily found that defendant was guilty of homicide which was not justifiable or excusable, thus rejecting the defense of self-defense and accident. Johnson’s claim of necessary self-defense has one glaring flaw: he occupied a vehicle that obviously had the capability to provide him a means of escape from the victim’s presence. Although testimony was given that Johnson’s vehicle stalled at one point, after the shot was fired, Johnson drove away in his truck. Thus, a reasonable juror of average prudence could have determined from the evidence that Johnson had a reasonable mode of escape from the situation. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
