Michael Johnson v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 150
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant Michael Johnson and long-term partner I.B. lived together; on Jan. 4–5, 2013 Johnson assaulted I.B., inflicted bruises, forced her outside naked into snow, and later had nonconsensual intercourse while she feared further violence.
- I.B. sought help, was taken to the hospital; police photographed injuries and arrested Johnson. He was charged with multiple felonies including two counts of criminal confinement, rape, battery, intimidation, strangulation, and a misdemeanor for interfering with reporting.
- Johnson filed a signed written jury-waiver that listed only the lead charge (criminal confinement) but also contained language waiving a jury for the case; the court conducted an ons-the-record colloquy and accepted the waiver.
- At bench trial, the court sustained State objections to defense cross-examination about I.B.’s prior sexual conduct; defense made no written Rule 412 motion or offer of proof.
- The trial court found Johnson guilty on all counts and imposed an aggregate executed sentence of 40 years (consecutive on rape); Johnson appealed, raising: (1) invalid jury-waiver, (2) erroneous exclusion of sex-history cross-examination, and (3) insufficiency of evidence as to rape and intimidation.
Issues
| Issue | Johnson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently waived jury for all charges | Waiver document listed only lead charge; thus he intended to waive jury only for that count | Signed waiver, counsel signature, in-court colloquy, and failure to object at trial show he waived jury for the whole case | Court: Waiver was valid as to the entire case — combined written waiver, counsel signature, colloquy, and conduct support waiver |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by excluding cross-examination about victim’s past sexual conduct | Questions were relevant to consent and relationship history | Evidence Rule 412 and procedural requirement (written motion and offer of proof) were not satisfied; objection on relevance sustainable on other record grounds | Court: Issue waived for failure to comply with Rule 412 and/or make offer of proof; even if error, exclusion was harmless given other evidence of relationship and consensual sex at a different time |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove rape (compelled by force or imminent threat) | Intercourse occurred after nonviolent tending (shower/bed), so State did not prove compulsion by force or imminent threat | Prior violent conduct that caused fear (grabbing, beating, threats, blacking out) made victim submit to avoid further beating | Court: Sufficient evidence; victim’s subjective fear from prior violence and defendant’s statement “I’ll kill you” supported compulsion by imminent threat |
| Whether evidence sufficient for Class D intimidation (threat in retaliation for prior lawful act) | Threat to kill not tied to any specific prior lawful act | Charging information and victim testimony linked threat to her having been away from the residence (prior lawful act) | Court: Sufficient evidence; threat was tied to victim’s lawful act of being somewhere other than home earlier that day |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. State, 757 N.E.2d 202 (preservation and standard for jury-waiver analysis)
- Poore v. State, 681 N.E.2d 204 (defendant must personally express desire to waive jury; counsel signature implies advice)
- Coleman v. State, 694 N.E.2d 269 (signed written waiver constitutes affirmative act for waiver)
- Williams v. State, 681 N.E.2d 195 (Rape-shield purpose and limits on inquiry into victim’s prior sexual activity)
- Conrad v. State, 938 N.E.2d 852 (Rule 412 exceptions and procedural requirements for sex-history evidence)
- Tobias v. State, 666 N.E.2d 68 (victim’s subjective perception governs whether force or imminent threat compelled compliance)
- Lewis v. State, 440 N.E.2d 1125 (force or threat can be inferred from circumstances without explicit verbal threats)
- Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Casey v. State, 676 N.E.2d 1069 (intimidation requires connection between threat and a specified prior lawful act)