Johnson v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-KA-01237-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-21-2012
Opinion Author: Roberts, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Robbery, Armed carjacking, Kidnapping, & Burglary of a dwelling - Sufficiency of evidence - Aider and abettor - Duress instruction
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ.
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-07-2010
Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court
Judge: Richard Smith
Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, ARMED ROBBERY, AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS; COUNT II, ARMED CARJACKING, AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS; COUNT III, KIDNAPPING, AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS; COUNT IV, BURGLARY OF A DWELLING, AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS WITH TEN YEARS TO SERVE, FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED, AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION; AND COUNT V, FIREARM ENHANCEMENT, AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS; WITH THE SENTENCES IN COUNTS I, II, III, AND IV TO RUN CONCURRENTLY AND THE SENTENCE IN COUNT V TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE CONCURRENT SENTENCES IN COUNTS I, II, III, AND IV; ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Case Number: 2009-0289

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Terry O. Johnson, Jr. a/k/a Terry O. Johnson




JOHNNIE E. WALLS JR. LESLIE S. LEE BENJAMIN ALLEN SUBER



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND  

    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: Robbery, Armed carjacking, Kidnapping, & Burglary of a dwelling - Sufficiency of evidence - Aider and abettor - Duress instruction

    Summary of the Facts: Terry Johnson Jr. was convicted of armed robbery, armed carjacking, kidnapping, burglary of a dwelling, and a sentence enhancement for the use of a firearm during the commission of armed robbery, armed carjacking, and kidnapping. He was sentenced to a total of fifteen years followed by five years of post release supervision. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Johnson argues that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial for a jury to convict him of all the counts. 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 testified as to his version of the events that transpired that night, but so did the victim. Although Johnson and the victim provided two different versions of the event, it is within the province of the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and give weight to conflicting testimony. It is clear that based on the victim’s testimony, the jury believed Johnson and another person had acted in concert to carry out the events that occurred that night. The victim testified that Johnson and an unidentified male were the persons who entered his home, carried out the items, and placed the items in the car’s trunk. Issue 2: Jury instructions Johnson argues that the circuit court erred in not granting his request for a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of duress. It is undisputed that it is a defendant’s right to have a jury instruction on his theory of the case presented even if the evidence is weak, inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility. Further, a defendant is entitled to his instruction even where the evidence arises only in the defendant’s own testimony. At trial, Johnson maintained he did not participate in the crimes, but there was sufficient evidence for a jury to determine that if he did participate, he was under duress. To prove duress, the defendant must show that he was under an unlawful and present, imminent, and impending threat of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury; that he had not recklessly or negligently placed himself in the situation; that he had no reasonable legal alternative to violating the law; and that a direct causal relationship may be reasonably anticipated between the criminal action and the avoidance of harm. Here, the circuit judge did not err in refusing to grant a duress instruction because there was no foundation in the evidence to establish duress. First, Johnson failed to satisfy part one of the test in that he did not establish that he was threatened in any way while he was committing the crimes. Johnson possessed the gun during at least one point of the crimes. Additionally, Johnson could have told the other person that he did not want to participate.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court