Johnson v. State
75 So. 3d 63
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Johnson was convicted of one count of statutory rape and sentenced to 30 years with 15 to serve and 15 suspended; he challenged the denial of his motion for a new trial.
- The victim, Anna, was 15 in July 2008; Johnson, her stepfather, allegedly raped her on two occasions in July 2008.
- Anna gave a four-page statement to police alleging two rapes; at trial she testified to one rape but admitted uncertainly about a second occurrence.
- Johnson impeached Anna with her prior written statement, which differed from her trial testimony.
- The circuit court admitted Anna's written statement; Johnson was convicted on one count and acquitted on the other.
- Johnson filed a post-trial motion, which the circuit court denied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence | Johnson; statement used for substantive proof of guilt | State; impeachment use allowed; no error | Issue not reversible; procedural bar and limited impact |
| Need for sua sponte limiting instruction on prior statement | Johnson; jurors should be instructed to limit the statement's use | State; defendant failed to request instruction | Not reversible; defense failed to request instruction |
| Sufficiency of evidence / directed verdict and new trial | Evidence insufficient beyond reasonable doubt | Evidence sufficient; testimonial consistency supports verdict | No error; verdict supported by overwhelming weight of evidence |
| Cumulative error warranting reversal | Errors cumulatively prejudicial | No meritorious errors found individually | Cumulative error does not warrant reversal |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Failure to object and to request limiting instruction | No reversible error; performance not deficient | Not warranted; counsel not ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 25 So.3d 264 (Miss. 2009) (impeachment uses of prior inconsistent statements; not substantive)
- Moss v. State, 977 So.2d 1201 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (limiting-instruction obligation rests on counsel; Rule 105)
- Brown v. State, 890 So.2d 901 (Miss. 2004) (Rule 105 limiting instruction burden on counsel)
- Price v. State, 898 So.2d 641 (Miss.2005) (witness credibility; jury as sole judge)
- Madden v. State, 42 So.3d 566 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and weight of evidence)
- Walker v. State, 878 So.2d 913 (Miss.2004) (no physical evidence needed for rape conviction)
- Winston v. State, 754 So.2d 1154 (Miss.1999) (rape conviction proof standards)
- Brown v. State, 890 So.2d 901 (Miss.2004) (limiting instructions under Rule 105)