Johnson v. State.dissent.2
2017 Ark. 138
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Appellant Stacey Eugene Johnson, convicted of the 1993 murder of Carol Jean Heath, seeks postconviction DNA testing under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201 et seq.
- A circuit court held a telephonic hearing, found Johnson failed to meet statutory requirements (actual innocence showing, timeliness, chain-of-custody), and denied the motion as untimely.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court majority granted a stay and remanded for a second hearing on Johnson’s motion without an accompanying written explanation.
- Justice Rhonda K. Wood (joined by Baker and Womack, JJ.) filed a dissent arguing the majority erred and that the circuit court’s findings were correct.
- The dissent identifies three primary defects: Johnson failed to show testing could establish actual innocence, his motion is barred by the statute’s timeliness presumption, and he did not adequately plead chain-of-custody for the evidence to be tested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proposed DNA testing could establish actual innocence | Johnson contends new touch-DNA/Y-STR testing might exonerate him | State argues prior proceedings and evidence (DNA linking Johnson, eyewitness ID, admissions) make innocence claim speculative | Majority granted further hearing; dissent holds Johnson failed to show testing might prove actual innocence and notes prior rejection in Johnson v. State |
| Timeliness of motion under §16-112-202 | Johnson asserts new testing methods developed after conviction warrant consideration | State asserts motion is presumptively untimely (36-month rule) and Johnson hasn’t rebutted the presumption; testing methods cited were available by 2009 | Circuit court found motion untimely; dissent agrees the motion is untimely under the statutory presumption |
| Chain of custody and preservation of evidence | Johnson seeks testing of state-held evidence | State points to statutory requirement that evidence be shown to have been preserved with an intact chain of custody | Circuit court found Johnson did not meet burden to show evidence custody/preservation; dissent agrees this statutory burden was not met |
| Procedural propriety of remand without explanation | Johnson seeks additional testing and a hearing | State argues remand was unnecessary given circuit court’s correct findings; dissent objects to unexplained summary remand | Majority remanded for another hearing without written explanation; dissent criticizes lack of reasoning and departure from statute/precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 356 Ark. 534, 157 S.W.3d 151 (Ark. 2004) (rejecting previously raised testing argument and cautioning against authorizing testing for a mere slight chance of a favorable result)
- State v. Reynolds, 926 N.E.2d 315 (Ohio App. 2009) (discussing availability and use of emerging touch-DNA testing techniques)