Bennie Johnson, Jr. v. State
06-14-00194-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 21, 2015Background
- Appellant Bennie Johnson was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to consecutive life terms in TDCJ; the appellate attorney filed an Anders brief and Johnson filed a pro se brief raising three issues.
- Victim testimony: on June 26, 2012 she accepted a ride, the driver pulled into a lot, displayed a gun, demanded oral sex, chased and threw her to the ground, threatened her life, and sexually assaulted her; she identified Johnson in a lineup and in court.
- Medical/physical evidence: medical records showed no observable injuries; an investigator testified lack of injury is common in sexual assaults.
- DNA evidence: DPS crime-lab analysis showed the epithelial fraction consistent with a mixture of the victim and Johnson; the sperm fraction was a mixture of Johnson, the victim, and an unknown contributor; Johnson could not be excluded as a major contributor.
- Appellant’s appellate points: (1) legal insufficiency of the evidence; (2) ineffective assistance because trial strategy allowed extraneous-offense evidence; (3) ineffective assistance for failing to pursue additional DNA investigation/testing.
- State’s position: under Jackson v. Virginia review the evidence is legally sufficient; counsel’s performance was not deficient and Johnson failed to prove Strickland prejudice; therefore the State asked the court to affirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of evidence to support aggravated sexual assault conviction | Johnson: testimony and physical/DNA evidence are inconsistent and create reasonable doubt | State: viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, victim ID, testimony, and DNA mixture are sufficient under Jackson | State argued issue should be overruled — evidence legally sufficient |
| Ineffective assistance — trial strategy that opened door to extraneous-offense evidence | Johnson: counsel’s decision to present a consent defense allowed introduction of other-acts testimony and was deficient | State: record shows defense knowingly pursued consent defense, defendant elected to testify after admonition; silent record on trial strategy precludes finding deficient performance | State argued issue should be overruled — no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to further investigate DNA | Johnson: counsel should have investigated alternative contributors/explained unknown DNA source | State: victim’s admitted consensual intercourse with fiancé explains unknown contributor; record lacks evidence counsel performed deficiently or that further testing would have changed outcome | State argued issue should be overruled — no prejudice shown under Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (review of legal sufficiency under reasonable-doubt standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test: performance and prejudice)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (definition of hypothetically correct jury charge for sufficiency review)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (deference to factfinder on conflicting inferences)
- Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (appellate review should not substitute judge’s credibility determinations for jury)