Alvin Lee Johnson v. State of Mississippi
224 So. 3d 549
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Alvin Johnson, age 29, was a frequent visitor to a household where two minors lived: A.H. (11) and T.H. (15).
- A.H. reported sexual intercourse with Johnson and possible pregnancy; T.H. also admitted a sexual relationship with Johnson.
- Johnson was indicted on two counts of statutory rape under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-65 and, after jury trial, convicted on both counts.
- Sentences: life for Count I and 15 years for Count II, to run concurrently; post-trial motions (new trial and JNOV) were denied.
- Johnson appealed arguing (1) a juror (Shirley Darden) withheld material information during voir dire and (2) admission of a police chief’s testimony violated his Confrontation Clause and hearsay rights.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding procedural bars to some claims and, on the merits, no reversible error in the trial court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror impartiality (Darden withheld knowledge) | Darden failed to disclose familiarity with Johnson/family; nondisclosure implies prejudice requiring new trial | No contemporaneous objection by Johnson; Darden’s familiarity was remote and she affirmed impartiality; issue waived | Procedurally barred for lack of timely objection; on merits trial court did not abuse discretion in seating Darden |
| Confrontation Clause (police chief’s testimony about witness statements) | Chief Jackson related testimonial out-of-court statements, depriving Johnson of ability to confront witnesses (Crawford) | Objections at trial were hearsay-based, not Crawford-based; issue not preserved; testimony was investigative background, not offered for truth | Not preserved as Sixth Amendment claim; even under Crawford/ testimonial analysis, any error would be harmless because statements explained investigative steps |
| Hearsay (admission of witness statements via police testimony) | Statements to police were hearsay and inadmissible as substantive proof | Chief Jackson’s testimony explained the investigation and next steps; statements not offered for truth; police may recount complaints and actions taken | Trial court did not abuse discretion; testimony admissible as investigative background and not hearsay for truth; any error harmless |
| Procedural preservation | Objections at trial and in post-trial motions were insufficiently specific to preserve Confrontation claim | State: contemporaneous and post-trial objections must specify Confrontation Clause to preserve appeal | Court agreed: general hearsay objections do not preserve a Crawford-based claim; issues waived if not timely and specifically raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial out-of-court statements inadmissible absent declarant unavailability and prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Swindle v. State, 502 So. 2d 652 (Miss. 1987) (police may testify that they received complaints and what they did without detailing complaint substance)
- Keller v. State, 138 So. 3d 817 (Miss. 2014) (failure to timely object to jury composition waives appellate review)
- Anderson v. State, 1 So. 3d 905 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (police testimony about receiving complaints admissible to explain investigative steps, not to prove truth)
- Ezell v. State, 132 So. 3d 611 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (Confrontation Clause claims must be raised contemporaneously to avoid procedural bar)
- Doss v. State, 906 So. 2d 836 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (defendant must timely call court’s attention to juror issues or waives objection)
- Walker v. State, 121 So. 3d 320 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (juror nondisclosure requires new trial if full response would supply cause for challenge)
- McGriggs v. State, 987 So. 2d 455 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal only for prejudice)
- Williams v. State, 61 So. 3d 981 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (trial court’s jury-selection discretion not reversed absent abuse)