Johnson v. State, 2010 OK CR 28

Johnson was convicted by a jury of rape in the first degree, forcible oral sodomy, and assault and battery by means likely to cause death; sentences were life without parole, 20 years, and life, consecutive.
Evidence showed Johnson abducted and attacked C.L. in October 2008, resulting in strangulation and extensive injuries; she fled naked and was aided by a homeowner who called 911.
State introduced evidence of a prior New Mexico rape for propensity purposes; the prior victim died, but trial preserved testimony on the rape and injuries without detailing death.
Trial court admitted New Mexico evidence over Johnson’s objection after applying Horn v. State factors for propensity evidence; jurors were instructed on limited admissibility.
The court held the propensity evidence was admissible, not unduly prejudicial, and the trial court properly applied the Horn framework, denying Johnson’s constitutional challenge.
Judgments and sentences affirmed, with mandate to issue upon delivery of the decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of §2413 under due process.	§2413 is unconstitutional and violates due process.	Statute is constitutional and consistent with due process.	Constitutional; no due process violation.
Admissibility of propensity evidence under Horn factors.	New Mexico evidence was prejudicial and improperly admitted.	Evidence met Horn factors and proper safeguards minimized prejudice.	Propensity evidence properly admitted; no abuse of discretion.

Horn v. State, 204 P.3d 777 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (proposes framework for admissibility of propensity evidence in sexual offenses)
Enjady, 134 F.3d 1427 (10th Cir. 1998) (propensity evidence corroborates rape victim's testimony on consent)
Guardia, 135 F.3d 1326 (10th Cir. 1998) (factors relevant to probative value of propensity evidence)
Benally, 500 F.3d 1085 (10th Cir. 2007) (propensity evidence handling and time considerations)