Johnson v. State
2017 Ark. 106
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Daniel Curtis Johnson was convicted by a Mississippi County jury of first-degree murder and a firearm enhancement for the June 22, 2015 shooting death of Vincent Stone; sentence: life plus 15 years consecutive.
- At trial, two eyewitnesses, Jimmy Aldridge Jr. and Chardrick Mitchell, testified they were playing basketball with Stone, witnessed two men (including Johnson) approach from behind, and identified Johnson as a shooter.
- After trial, defense learned of a June 28, 2015 Facebook post by Aldridge suggesting frustration that many people were present yet few came forward; defense moved for a new trial under Rule 33.3(b) based on the post as newly discovered evidence.
- At the new-trial hearing Aldridge testified the Facebook post was sarcastic and consistent with his trial testimony that he saw the shooting and had identified Johnson; he denied recanting or contradicting his in-court identification.
- The circuit court denied the motion, finding the post did not show perjury or materially undermine Aldridge’s identification and was at best cumulative impeachment; the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying a new trial based on Aldridge’s Facebook post as newly discovered evidence | Johnson: the post shows Aldridge did not actually witness the shooting and would have materially undermined his identification, warranting a new trial | State: the post is consistent with trial testimony, not a recantation, and at most provides cumulative impeachment that would not change the outcome | Court: Affirmed denial — post was not newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial; it did not materially impact the verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- McIntosh v. State, 340 Ark. 34 (discretion to grant new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Wilcox v. State, 342 Ark. 388 (movant must show new evidence would have impacted outcome and that diligence was used to discover it)
- Cherry v. State, 341 Ark. 924 (trial court factual findings on new-trial motions reviewed for clear error)
- Bennett v. State, 307 Ark. 400 (new trial required where material perjured testimony was newly discovered)
- Bussey v. State, 69 Ark. 545 (reversal where victim provided sworn recantation after trial)
- Gross v. State, 242 Ark. 142 (new evidence must make a different result probable, not merely be contradictory)