Johnson, Justin Davis
PD-1542-14
| Tex. App. | Jan 21, 2015Background
- On Dec. 28, 2011, at a hunting cabin in Hood County, Justin Davis Johnson shot Ryan Armstrong twice (jaw and back). Kent Bolsinger was present and later called 911. Johnson was intoxicated that evening.
- Johnson was charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon: (1) causing serious bodily injury to Armstrong (shooting) and (2) threatening Bolsinger (pointing a gun and demanding truck keys).
- At trial Johnson asserted self-defense (claiming Armstrong had assaulted and threatened to kill him) and produced witnesses; Bolsinger and Armstrong testified for the State with some inconsistent statements.
- A 911 call from Bolsinger (played to the jury) described the shooting as an "accidental discharge" and did not mention Johnson pointing a gun at Bolsinger or a second shot as Bolsinger later testified.
- The trial court admitted testimony by Dr. Smithson and Sonny Frisbie as experts; defense objected but the court allowed their testimony. Johnson also requested a voluntary-intoxication (temporary insanity) instruction at punishment, which was denied.
- Jury convicted on both counts; sentences of 12 and 6 years concurrent. The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed. Johnson petitioned for discretionary review raising sufficiency, confrontation/expert witness, discovery/impartial judge, and intoxication instruction issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency to disprove self-defense (shooting Armstrong) | The 911 recording undermines Bolsinger's trial testimony; once that testimony is excluded the record supports Johnson's self-defense and the State failed to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt | Jury credibility determinations and eyewitness testimony (Armstrong, Bolsinger) supported rejection of self-defense; evidence Johnson walked over and shot Armstrong a second time undermines self-defense | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for conviction; jury could credit State witnesses and conclude conduct inconsistent with self-defense |
| Legal sufficiency for aggravated assault by threat (threat to Bolsinger) | 911 call shows Bolsinger did not report a threat or demand for keys; Bolsinger's in-court testimony conflicted with contemporaneous statement so State did not meet burden | Bolsinger's testimony (despite inconsistencies) alone sufficed for jury to find threat; credibility for jury to resolve | Affirmed: evidence sufficient; jury could find Johnson threatened Bolsinger with a gun |
| Confrontation / expert testimony (Smithson and Frisbie) — preservation | Objections at trial raised confrontation and personal-knowledge concerns; failure to admitably confront testimonial materials should preserve error | Appellant did not timely or specifically object under Confrontation Clause at trial; issues waived on appeal | Affirmed: appellate court found Johnson waived Confrontation Clause complaints by failing to object on that ground at trial |
| Discovery / judge impartiality (willful nondisclosure; court ruling on admissibility) | Trial court allowed experts whose use was not disclosed in violation of the court’s discovery order; this was more than an admissibility ruling and creates reversible error per Oprean | Trial court simply ruled on admissibility; no judicial impropriety or prejudice; evidence admissible and similar evidence was elicited without objection | Affirmed: no reversible error; court did not find judicial impropriety or prejudicial harm |
| Voluntary intoxication / temporary insanity instruction at punishment | Johnson argued gross intoxication rendered him temporarily insane and entitled to mitigation instruction under Penal Code §8.04(b) | Evidence showed intoxication but not that he did not know conduct was wrong; defendant testified coherently and gave detailed recollection, so no temporary-insanity evidence | Affirmed: no entitlement to instruction—defendant failed to raise evidence that intoxication caused lack of knowledge of wrongfulness |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (legal-sufficiency review gives deference to jury but recognizes recorded evidence can make a verdict irrational)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for appellate legal-sufficiency review)
- Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (appellate deference to factfinder unless record clearly shows contrary result)
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (burden-shifting when defendant raises self-defense)
- Oprean v. State, 201 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (willful nondisclosure under discovery order may require exclusion/remedy)
- Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (self-defense issues resolved by jury credibility determinations)