Johnson v. State
2014 Alas. LEXIS 125
| Alaska | 2014Background
- Johnson kidnapped S.S. July 11, 2007, and non-consensually penetrated her orally and vaginally at knife-point.
- A grand jury charged Johnson with kidnapping, assault in the third degree, and two counts of sexual assault in the first degree; he was convicted on all four counts.
- Johnson received a consecutive sentence totaling 57 years, five months, two days, plus 15 years of probation, with separate punishments for the two first-degree sexual assaults.
- In the trial court, Johnson did not expressly argue that the two sexual-assault counts must merge under double-jeopardy; he argued only that the court could have discretion to merge.
- The superior court believed it had no authority to merge the two sexual-assault counts; Johnson did not pursue a merger argument in the trial court.
- The Alaska Court of Appeals held Johnson forfeited the merger argument for lack of preservation and found no plain-error to merge sua sponte; the Supreme Court granted review on mer it merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unpreserved double-jeopardy claim merits review | Johnson argues full merits review is required for unpreserved double-jeopardy claims. | State contends Adams factors apply and preserve limits on review. | Unpreserved double-jeopardy claims are reviewable on the merits as fundamental error. |
| Invited-error doctrine application | Johnson did not invite error by requesting merger only as a possibility. | State says Johnson invited the issue by his sentencing remarks. | Johnson did not invite the error; invited-error review does not apply. |
| Federal double-jeopardy analysis | Separate convictions for oral and vaginal sexual assaults may violate federal double-jeopardy by punishing multiple offenses for a single course of conduct. | Legislative intent to punish multiple types of non-consensual penetration supports separate punishments. | No federal double-jeopardy violation; legislative intent supports multiple punishments for distinct penetrations. |
| Alaska constitutional double-jeopardy (Whitton test) | Under Whitton, multiple punishments may be unconstitutional for one course of conduct. | Whitton supports independent societal interests justifying separate punishments. | Under Whitton, Johnson’s multiple sexual-assault counts are permissible; no Alaska constitutional violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitton v. State, 479 P.2d 302 (Alaska 1970) (Whitton governs Alaska multiplicity analysis for double jeopardy)
- Dunlop v. State, 721 P.2d 604 (Alaska 1986) (clarified Whitton; considers consequences and victims in Whitton framework)
- Thessen v. State, 508 P.2d 1192 (Alaska 1973) (limits on multiple punishment when harm to multiple victims)
- Gudmundson v. State, 822 P.2d 1328 (Alaska 1991) (unpreserved constitutional challenges may be reviewed where fundamental)
- Charles v. State, 287 P.3d 779 (Alaska App. 2012) (unpreserved ex post facto challenge reviewed on the merits)
- Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758 (Alaska 2011) (plain-error framework; admissible for fundamental-error review)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (United States, 1997) (plain-error-like concept of obvious error clarified at federal level)