Johnson v. the State
340 Ga. App. 429
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 31, 2014, Johnson approached a bank teller, displayed a note demanding money and lifted his shirt to reveal a handgun; the teller placed bait money (with bank alarm markers) in a bag and Johnson fled with the bag.
- Surveillance photos circulated; tips identified Johnson later the same day and police located him after a vehicle chase; the vehicle contained bait bills matching serial numbers and a loaded pistol and Johnson’s license.
- A grand jury indicted Johnson for armed robbery, aggravated assault, and related firearm-possession counts; a jury convicted him on all counts and the trial court later merged the aggravated-assault convictions into the armed-robbery convictions for sentencing.
- The State introduced two prior incidents under OCGA § 24-4-404(b): (1) a March 2013 road-rage episode in which witnesses identified Johnson as pointing a gun; (2) an Aug. 2014 South Carolina incident in which a woman identified Johnson as the armed robber.
- Post-trial, Johnson challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence that he was armed, (2) admission of other-acts evidence, (3) the trial court’s refusal to excuse the entire venire after one biased prospective juror spoke during voir dire, and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel for not moving for a mistrial or a new panel.
Issues
| Issue | Johnson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that a firearm was used | Showing only the gun handle tucked in pants was not use of a firearm for armed robbery | Display of a gun handle created reasonable apprehension and supported armed-robbery and firearm-possession convictions | Affirmed: display of the gun was sufficient to prove armed robbery and related firearm offense (Jackson standard) |
| Admission of other-acts evidence under OCGA § 24-4-404(b) | Prior incidents were inadmissible character evidence and unduly prejudicial | Prior acts showed intent/identity and were probative; court properly balanced Rule 403 factors | Affirmed: other-acts evidence admissible (Eleventh Circuit three-prong test applied) |
| Failure to excuse entire jury panel after one prospective juror’s voir dire remarks | Panel should have been discharged because remarks showed prejudgment | Remarks were speculative, not inherently prejudicial; juror was excused and remaining panel was polled for impartiality | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in retaining panel |
| Ineffective assistance for not moving for mistrial or new panel | Counsel deficient for failing to move for mistrial/new panel after voir dire remarks | Mistrial motion would have been meritless; failure to make meritless motion is not deficient; no prejudice shown | Affirmed: no ineffective assistance (Strickland standard not met) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (established standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong standard)
- Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650 (adoption of Eleventh Circuit three-prong 404(b) test)
- Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (intent as essential element; relevance of other-acts to intent)
- Wilson v. State, 336 Ga. App. 60 (probative v. prejudicial balancing under Rule 403)
- Price v. State, 289 Ga. App. 763 (display of firearm sufficient to create reasonable apprehension for armed robbery)
- Cotton v. State, 279 Ga. 358 (voir dire/mistrial rules; timing of mistrial motions)