Johnson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00872-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00872-COA ; 2010-CT-00872-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-29-2011 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder, Aggravated assault & Shooting into occupied dwelling - Audio recording - M.R.E. 401 - Prosecutorial misconduct - Discovery violation - URCCC 9.04(A)(1) - Cross-examination - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-05-2010 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, MURDER , AND SENTENCED TO LIFE; COUNTS II-V, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS IN EACH COUN; AND COUNT VI, SHOOTING INTO AN OCCUPIED DWELLING, AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS, WITH THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO ONE ANOTHER, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Robert Shuler Smith Case Number: 09-0-189 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Randy Johnson |
KEVIN DALE CAMP, JOHN MICHAEL DUNCAN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA LYNN 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: | Murder, Aggravated assault & Shooting into occupied dwelling - Audio recording - M.R.E. 401 - Prosecutorial misconduct - Discovery violation - URCCC 9.04(A)(1) - Cross-examination - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Randy Johnson was convicted of murder, four counts of aggravated assault, and shooting into an occupied dwelling. The circuit court sentenced Johnson to life for murder, ten years for each count of aggravated assault, and five years for shooting into an occupied dwelling, with all sentences to run consecutively to one another. Johnson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Audio recording Johnson argues the circuit court should have allowed him to play a clandestine audio recording that Johnson recorded on his cellular telephone. Recordings must be relevant under M.R.E. 401 and authentic before they can be admitted into evidence. The mere fact that portions of such a recording are inaudible does not render it per se inadmissible. The question is whether what can be heard has probative value within Rule 401. Johnson’s cellular telephone was not intended to capture clandestine conversations. The voices on the enhanced audio recordings are muffled, garbled, indistinct, and simply unintelligible. Because the scant intelligible portions of the three-minute enhanced audio recordings do not tend to make any fact of consequence more or less probable, the enhanced audio recordings are irrelevant and, therefore, inadmissible. Issue 2: Prosecutorial misconduct Johnson argues that the prosecutor made improper remarks during closing arguments that attempted to shift the burden to Johnson. To determine whether a prosecutor's closing remarks constitute reversible error, the Court considers whether the remarks were improper, and if so, whether the remarks prejudicially affected the accused's rights. It is not error to comment on the defense's failure to offer any evidence whatsoever to counter or explain the State's evidence. Furthermore, it is not improper for the prosecution to argue in closing that a defendant’s case is inadequate. The circuit court adequately instructed the jury regarding the prosecution’s burden of proof. That is, the circuit court instructed the jury that Johnson was presumed to be innocent, and the prosecution had the burden of proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt. The circuit court also instructed the jury that Johnson was not required to prove his innocence. What is more, the circuit court gave an adequate curative instruction after Johnson objected to the prosecution’s remark. Thus, there is no merit to this issue. Issue 3: Discovery violation Johnson argues that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial due to a discovery violation. During cross-examination of one of Johnson’s witnesses, the prosecution attempted to impeach him with a letter that he wrote to a detective. Johnson’s attorney objected and stated that the prosecution had not provided him with the witness’s statement during discovery. URCCC 9.04(A)(1) provides that the State must disclose to each defendant or to defendant's attorney, and permit the defendant or defendant's attorney to inspect and copy the names and addresses of all witnesses in chief proposed to be offered by the prosecution at trial, together with a copy of the contents of any statement, written, recorded, or otherwise preserved of each such witness and the substance of any oral statement made by any such witness. The prosecution did not intend to call the witness during Johnson’s trial. Moreover, the prosecution did not call him as a witness. Johnson did. Consequently, Rule 9.04(A)(1) did not obligate the prosecution to disclose the witness’s prior inconsistent statement. In addition, the court heard testimony that the prosecution made the statement available to Johnson’s attorney. It was certainly within the circuit court’s discretion to believe the sworn testimony of an officer of the court. Issue 4: Cross-examination Johnson argues that he should have been allowed to cross-examine the expert regarding the SKS rifle. Evidence is relevant if it tends to make the existence of any fact more or less probable. The record contains no evidence that the SKS rifle was involved with the events that led to Johnson’s convictions. Instead, it is undisputed that the SKS rifle was not involved with the shootings. Thus, there is no error. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence Johnson argues that he should not have been found guilty as charged for the principal crimes committed by another person. Johnson was not charged as a conspirator, but as an aider and abettor or an accessory-before-the-fact. It is well established that any person who is present at the commission of a criminal offense and aids, counsels, or encourages another in the commission of that offense is an ‘aider and abettor’ and is equally guilty with the principal offender. Johnson was convicted – as an aider and abettor – of murder, four counts of aggravated assault, and shooting into an occupied dwelling. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there was sufficient evidence to convict Johnson on all counts as an aider and abettor. Johnson attacks the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses by noting that some of them had been drinking and/or smoking marijuana at the time they observed the events. However, the jury is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses. From the evidence, the jury could have reasonably concluded Johnson assisted the other person by informing him of the previous altercation, requesting a weapon, driving the person to the house after the person procured a weapon, and allowing the person to exit his car while armed with a rifle. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
