Johnson v. State
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 83
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Joe Dale Johnson, a church volunteer, was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child based principally on the testimony of the victim, H.H.; Johnson received life sentences.
- H.H. made an outcry in November 2007 after interactions with Johnson earlier that year; Johnson was arrested in December 2007 and tried in June 2011.
- Before and at trial, defense learned H.H. had been placed in counseling and later adjudicated as a juvenile for sexually assaulting his younger sister (the adjudication occurred after H.H.’s outcry but the underlying conduct predated the outcry).
- At trial the court allowed questioning about H.H.’s counseling and other ‘‘troubled child’’ facts (pornography, shoplifting, strained family relations) but prohibited cross‑examination and jury testimony that H.H. had been sexually abusing his sister and was placed in counseling for that reason.
- The trial court admitted state witness G.M.’s testimony about a 1979 extraneous sexual‑assault allegation against Johnson to rebut the defense theory of fabrication; the jury convicted Johnson on two aggravated‑assault counts (and indecency, later reversed for double jeopardy).
- On discretionary review the Court held the trial judge abused his discretion by excluding the proffered cross‑examination about H.H.’s sexual abuse of his sister because it was relevant to motive to fabricate and constitutionally required; the case was remanded for harm analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victim’s past sexual behavior (cross‑examination about H.H. sexually abusing his sister and parents placing him in counseling) | Exclusion proper under rules limiting impeachment and juvenile adjudication evidence; relevance and prejudice concerns | Evidence was critical to show H.H.’s motive to fabricate, affecting credibility and mental state at outcry; admissible under Rule 412 and Sixth Amendment | Court: Exclusion was an abuse of discretion; evidence was admissible for motive/bias and required by Confrontation Clause; remand for harm analysis |
| Scope of Confrontation Clause (right to cross‑examine for bias/motive) | Limits permissible where cross‑examination is marginal, harassing, or prejudicial | Denial prevented effective cross‑examination of a central witness and impaired presentation of fabrication defense | Court: The Sixth Amendment required the cross‑examination opportunity here; trial limits went beyond permissible restrictions |
| Application of Texas Rule 412 and Rule 403 (victim’s past sexual behavior vs. prejudice) | Probative value was weak and outweighed by unfair prejudice and juvenile‑privacy interests | Probative value was substantial because it directly supported motive to fabricate; in a ‘‘he‑said/she‑said’’ case Rule 403 exclusion should be sparingly used | Court: Rule 412 and Confrontation Clause supported admission; probative value outweighed prejudice in this context |
| Rebuttal extraneous‑offense evidence admitted for State (1980 conviction, G.M. testimony) | Admissible to rebut fabrication/retaliation theory; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice | Challenged as unfairly prejudicial at guilt/innocence stage | Court did not review this issue on PDR; appellate court had upheld admission and Court declined to address it here |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (defendant’s right to cross‑examine a witness about matters bearing on bias and credibility)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (limitations on cross‑examination must not deprive defendant of opportunity for effective confrontation)
- Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Confrontation Clause may require admission of evidence otherwise barred when necessary to show motive to fabricate)
- Irby v. State, 327 S.W.3d 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (requires logical connection between asserted bias and witness’s testimony before admitting certain impeachment evidence)
- Thaxton D. Johnson v. State, 433 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (discusses limits on cross‑examination and Sixth Amendment balancing)