Johnson v. State
2012 UT App 262
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Johnson convicted of murder after trial with DNA evidence testimony; direct appeal affirmed that defense counsel’s decision not to call an additional DNA expert was a strategic choice.
- Postconviction relief petitions in 2008 and 2010 challenged counsel's strategic decisions and sought DNA testing; district court dismissed.
- Utah Supreme Court affirmed prior postconviction rulings, holding the claims precluded and not warranted further testing
- Statutory framework prohibits postconviction DNA testing when testing was available at trial and not requested or pursued for tactical reasons.
- The district court dismissed Johnson’s 2010 petition under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-301(4); reviewing court treats dismissal as a question of law
- Court affirms district court’s dismissal, confirming no tactical basis to order DNA testing under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 78B-9-301(4) bars postconviction DNA testing when available at trial and no request or tactical justification. | Johnson contends no tactical reason; testing would be exculpatory. | State argues testing was not allowed due to tactical reasons; available at trial but not pursued. | Yes; statute bars testing; no tactical justification shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State (Johnson I), 2007 UT App 184, 163 P.3d 695 (Utah Court of Appeals 2007) (held defense counsel's strategic choice not to pursue DNA testing was reasonable)
- Johnson v. State (Johnson II), 2011 UT 59, 267 P.3d 880 (Utah Supreme Court 2011) (affirmed dismissal and tactical rationale in postconviction argues)
- Gardner v. State, 2010 UT 46, 234 P.3d 1115 (Utah Supreme Court 2010) (standard of review for postconviction rulings)