Johnson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-01202-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-11-2005 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Deliberate design murder - Pre-arming jury instruction - Self-defense instruction - Hearsay - Dying declaration - M.R.E. 804(b)(2) - M.R.E. 103(a) Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, Graves and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-25-2004 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Al Smith Disposition: Johnson was found guilty of deliberate design murder and sentenced to serve a life term in the Mississippi Department of Corrections. District Attorney: LAWRENCE Y. MELLEN Case Number: 2004-049-CR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ardes Johnson |
PHILLIP BROADHEAD, RAYMOND L. WONG |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
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: | Deliberate design murder - Pre-arming jury instruction - Self-defense instruction - Hearsay - Dying declaration - M.R.E. 804(b)(2) - M.R.E. 103(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ardes Johnson was convicted of deliberate design murder and sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury instructions Johnson argues that the judge committed reversible error by giving a jury instruction regarding pre-arming because it allowed the jury to discount his theory of self-defense. When there is a total lack of evidence, it is not proper for a court to give a pre-arming instruction. Furthermore, when there is ambiguity regrading who is the first aggressor, a pre-arming instruction is not appropriate. While there are three cases where the Supreme Court has upheld the pre-arming instruction, those cases are distinguishable from the present case. Here, there is no evidentiary basis for the pre-arming instruction. While Johnson did arm himself with the knife, he did not seek the victim out as in the other cases. The State did not produce any evidence that Johnson placed the knife in his pocket intending to provoke an altercation with the victim. This is a case containing disputed facts regarding Johnson’s self-defense, and this issue should be presented to the jury by conventional self defense instructions. Thus, the granting of the pre-armed instruction was reversible error. Johnson also argues that another jury instruction misstated the applicable law, confused the jury, and negated his theory of the case when the instructions are considered in their totality. The instruction provided that “when a person repels an assault with a deadly weapon, he acts at his own peril, and the question of whether he was justified in using the weapon is to be determined by you, unless there is no reasonable inference in the evidence except that the use of deadly weapon appeared necessary to protect himself or another from death or great bodily harm at the hands of his assailant.” This instruction is contradictory and confusing and does not correctly state the applicable law because one acting in self-defense does not act at his own peril. This instruction constitutes reversible error. Issue 2: Hearsay Johnson argues that the court erred in admitting the victim’s hearsay statement under the dying declaration exception, M.R.E. 804(b)(2), because there was no showing that the victim believed he was going to die. Johnson asserts that such statement deprived him of the right to a fair trial because it tainted the jury from the start and assured that he would be found guilty. However, the jury knew from the start of the trial that Johnson stabbed the victim. Johnson even admitted to the stabbing, and the only question for the jury was whether the stabbing was done in self-defense. Under M.R.E. 103(a), error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right is affected by the ruling. Johnson has failed to show what right, if any, was affected by the admission of the statement. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
