Johnson v. State
115 A.3d 668
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- Johnson struck Vendemia, causing him to fall and strike his head; Vendemia died days later from head injuries.
- At trial, Johnson was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to seven years.
- The State originally charged Johnson with second-degree murder; the circuit court granted judgment of acquittal on that count and the case proceeded on involuntary manslaughter.
- Witnesses including Baber, Stacy Dillon, Morales, and Dr. Ripple testified about the altercation and Vendemia’s injuries.
- The court declined to include the full third element of the battery form of second-degree assault pattern instruction, and later summarized the assault instruction for involuntary manslaughter; Johnson appealed.
- Johnson timely filed an appeal challenging the instruction on second-degree assault, the lack of a self-defense instruction, and the involuntary manslaughter pattern instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by modifying the second-degree assault instruction | Johnson argues the court should have included the no-justification element permitting a reasonableness defense | State contends reasonableness is not a recognized defense and no justification exists | No reversible error; provocation does not negate liability and there was no justified defense to second-degree assault |
| Whether the court erred by failing to give a self-defense instruction | Johnson contends evidence supported a self-defense theory | State argues the issue was not preserved and evidence did not support self-defense | Waived and, even if preserved, evidence insufficient to require instruction |
| Whether the involuntary manslaughter instruction accurately states the law | Johnson claims the pattern instruction omits life-endangerment element required by Prostic/Schlossman line | State argues pattern instruction correctly states law and supports Schlossman | Pattern instruction accurate; plain-error review declined; Schlossman remains controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlossman v. State, 105 Md. App. 277 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995) (unlawful act involuntary manslaughter may be based on malum in se acts regardless of life-endangering feitures)
- Pagotto v. State, 361 Md. 528 (Md. 2000) (definitional scope of involuntary manslaughter; endangering life discussion relevant to different forms of the offense)
- Schlossman (discussed) and related authorities, 105 Md. App. 277 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995) (established malum in se unlawful act involuntary manslaughter framework; not requiring life-endangering act for liability)
- State v. Rich, 415 Md. 567 (Md. 2010) (provocation and defenses; defense of provocation generally not a stand-alone defense to this charge)
- Christian v. State, 405 Md. 306 (Md. 2008) (reasonableness in the context of self-defense standards; legal justification concepts)
- Haile v. State, 431 Md. 448 (Md. 2013) (elements of self-defense and reasonableness standards)
- Wentworth v. State, 29 Md. App. 110 (Md. 1975) (duress as a defense; general framework for legal justification)
- Genies v. State, 196 Md. App. 590 (Md. 2010) (general intent offenses and mens rea considerations in assault)
- Wieland v. State, 101 Md. App. 1 (Md. 1994) (analysis of mens rea in battery offenses)