Johnson v. State
352 S.W.3d 224
Tex. App.2011Background
- Johnson was convicted of one count of murder, with punishment set at 60 years.
- Trial counsel moved to withdraw mid-trial to testify as a witness regarding a prior inconsistent statement by a State witness.
- The trial court denied the withdrawal motion after a bench conference.
- The defense rested without presenting evidence; Lewis did not testify and was not called by co-counsel.
- The court applied a six-factor framework to review the denial of withdrawal and ultimately affirmed the denial.
- Appellant argues the denial of the withdrawal motion was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying withdrawal | Johnson | Johnson believes withdrawal was necessary | No abuse; court balanced factors and denied withdrawal |
| Good cause for withdrawal | Johnson | Lewis had good cause to testify for defense | Good cause shown; but not dispositive against denial |
| Necessity for withdrawal | Johnson | Withdrawal necessary to impeach witness | Necessity limited; withdrawal not mandatory under Rule 3.08 |
| Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice | Johnson | Right not absolute; outweighed by trial integrity | Not violated; right to counsel of choice not absolute in this context |
| Sixth Amendment right to call witnesses in defense | Johnson | Lewis not called as witness; trial court inquiry adequate | Right not violated given record and court’s ruling; no failure to allow key witness |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (abuse of discretion standard for withdrawal rulings; zone of reasonable disagreement)
- Brewer v. State, 649 S.W.2d 628 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (guidance on discretionary withdrawal decisions)
- Ex parte Windham, 634 S.W.2d 718 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (balancing factors for continuances and counsel of choice)
- Gonzalez v. State, 117 S.W.3d 831 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (attorney as witness concerns; impact on prejudice and credibility)
- Harrison v. State, 788 S.W.2d 18 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (disqualification and testimony by counsel; tangential involvement)
- Kwang Fu Peng, 766 F.2d 82 (2d Cir.1985) (counsel's involvement as witness and prejudicial impact discussed in disqualification context)
- Ramon v. State, 159 S.W.3d 927 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (testimony rules for prosecutors; relevant principles applied to advocate-witness)