Johnston v. State
70 So. 3d 472
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Johnston convicted of first-degree murder of Janice Nugent and sentenced to death; direct appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- Postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 denied; Johnston also filed a habeas petition.
- Claims raised include ineffective assistance of counsel at penalty phase (brother’s testimony, mental health mitigation, confession from prior murder, Williams rule evidence, suppression of statements, medication during Coryell trial, jury instructions, and evidentiary hearings), and fingerprint evidence challenges.
- Evidence at trial included Johnston’s fingerprints, kitchen cup fingerprint, bathtub faucet prints, shoe prints, and a DNA stain on a sheet linking to Johnston; Williams rule linked Coryell and Nugent murders.
- Court evaluated each claim for Strickland deficiency and prejudice; many claims found deficient or procedurally barred, with no prejudice to the outcome.
- Habeas claims regarding mental status and duplicative issues were denied; the court affirmed denial of postconviction relief and habeas petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Penalty-phase counsel’s decision to call Johnston’s brother | Johnston argues ineffectiveness for calling Allen to testify | State contends strategy to present long-term mental health history was reasonable | No deficient performance; strategy reasonable and supported by record |
| Presentation of mental health mitigation | Failure to present detailed mental health mitigation harmed the defense | Counsel relied on qualified experts; testimony was reasonable and not deficient | No ineffective assistance; reliance on expert testimony was appropriate |
| Admission of Coryell confession during Nugent trial | Counsel should have warned about use of Coryell confession in future prosecution | Claim is not cognizable across separate trials; not deficient action | Claim fails; separate-trial context defeats this argument |
| Admission of Williams rule evidence (Coryell murder) and Dr. Martin testimony | Giglio/false testimony claims; mischaracterization of bruises to admit Williams rule | Claim procedurally barred from direct appeal; Dr. Martin testimony consistent | Procedurally barred and lacking merit; no Giglio violation |
| Failure to challenge fingerprint evidence reliability and related objections | Counsel should have presented fingerprint-reliability expert and objected to evidence | Expert would be inadmissible and objections unwarranted; strategic decisions reasonable | No deficiency; expert would be inadmissible and objections meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Darling v. State, 966 So.2d 366 (Fla.2007) (reliance on mental health expert evaluations permissible)
- Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037 (Fla.2000) (strategic decisions not deficient if reasonable under professional norms)
- Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959) (Williams rule admissibility similarities in collateral crimes)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor withholding or presenting false testimony; materiality requirements)
- Owen v. State, 986 So.2d 534 (Fla.2008) (inadmissible expert testimony on fingerprint reliability; admissibility limits)
- Armstrong, 920 So.2d 769 (Fla.2006) (inadmissibility of certain fingerprint expert testimony)