Johnson v. State
2017 Ark. App. 373
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- On March 19, 2014, Joshua Johnson went to his ex-wife Lora Karras’s home and shot her twice with a shotgun; she died. Johnson claimed mental-disease-or-defect (PTSD, depression, alcohol abuse) as his defense.
- A blood sample drawn from Johnson the day of the shooting was misplaced by police for eight days before being sent to the state crime lab; lab reported a BAC of .19%. Defense earlier moved to suppress based on chain-of-custody and refrigeration issues.
- At trial the State presented testimony explaining the misplacement and Dr. Don Riddle testified that the eight-day lack of refrigeration would minimally affect BAC; defense counsel expressly told the court Dr. Riddle’s testimony satisfied his concerns and raised no objection when the report was admitted.
- The State presented eyewitness testimony (Johnson’s brother, children) and forensic evidence; the defense presented expert testimony supporting PTSD and related impairments while the State’s experts attributed the killing to voluntary intoxication.
- The court refused the defense’s requested manslaughter (extreme-emotional-disturbance) instruction and allowed the victim’s mother, Pam Boone, to remain in the courtroom despite Rule 615; Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 40 years.
- On appeal Johnson challenged (1) admission of blood-sample evidence, (2) refusal to instruct manslaughter, and (3) court’s refusal to exclude the victim’s mother under Rule 615. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Johnson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of blood-sample evidence | Chain of custody broken and sample unreliable after 8 days unrefrigerated | Lab testified minimal BAC change; defense counsel expressly waived objection at trial | Waived by Johnson; trial counsel agreed testimony satisfied concerns and declined to object |
| Manslaughter instruction (extreme-emotional-disturbance) | PTSD, marital fight, and wife leaving provided evidence of provocation to support manslaughter | No evidence of provocation or contemporaneous provoked act required for instruction | No abuse of discretion in refusing instruction; evidence insufficient to show required provocation |
| Excluding victim’s mother under Rule 615 | Rule 615 mandatory; subpoenaed witness should have been excluded | Court exempted closest relative; defendant suffered no prejudice | No reversible error; defendant failed to show prejudice (defense called her and her testimony was not harmful) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sales v. State, 374 Ark. 222, 289 S.W.3d 423 (waiver where defendant affirmatively accepts evidence at trial)
- McClain v. State, 361 Ark. 133, 205 S.W.3d 123 (failure to make contemporaneous objection bars appellate review)
- Hardman v. State, 356 Ark. 7, 144 S.W.3d 744 (contemporaneous-objection principle)
- Hill v. State, 337 Ark. 219, 988 S.W.2d 487 (contemporaneous-objection principle)
- Flowers v. State, 362 Ark. 193, 208 S.W.3d 113 (reversal required if slightest evidence supports lesser-included offense; otherwise no rational basis)
- Morris v. State, 351 Ark. 426, 94 S.W.3d 913 (lesser-included instruction standards)
- Grillot v. State, 353 Ark. 294, 107 S.W.3d 136 (abuse-of-discretion review for instruction rulings)
- Boyle v. State, 363 Ark. 356, 214 S.W.3d 250 (extreme-emotional-disturbance requires provocation evidence)
- Kail v. State, 341 Ark. 89, 14 S.W.3d 878 (marital discord insufficient without provocation for manslaughter instruction)
- Spann v. State, 328 Ark. 509, 944 S.W.2d 537 (passion alone insufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter)
- Clark v. State, 323 Ark. 211, 913 S.W.2d 297 (no presumed prejudice from Rule 615 violation; appellant must show prejudice)
- Wallace v. State, 314 Ark. 247, 862 S.W.2d 235 (prejudice requirement for Rule 615 errors)