People v. Johnsen, 10 Cal.5th 1116

Background

Defendant Brian Johnsen was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder (special circumstances: murder during robbery and burglary), attempted murder, multiple robberies and burglaries, and solicitation to commit murder; jury returned death verdict at penalty phase; judgment affirmed.
Victims: Juanita Bragg was killed by blunt force and stab wounds; her husband Leo Bragg severely injured and survived with lifelong impairments resulting from the same attack during a burglary/robbery of Sylvia Rudy’s home.
Key evidence: Johnsen’s detailed 14‑page signed jailhouse confession (obtained via inmate Eric Holland), notes passed to other inmates instructing witnesses to feign memory loss or frame others, recovered stolen property traced to Johnsen’s home/family, DNA/hair evidence from pantyhose, and testimony tying items to Johnsen.
Pretrial and trial disputes included: denial of change of venue based on media publicity; admissibility of Holland’s informant testimony (Massiah/agent issue); challenges to instructions (accomplice corroboration, reasonable doubt); chain-of-custody and DNA/hair issues; juror misconduct (juror consulted priest about death penalty); and numerous penalty-phase claims (victim impact, prior murder/Holloway evidence, prosecutorial argument).
The Supreme Court reviewed multiple constitutional and state-law claims, including Sixth Amendment counsel‑of‑choice/agent issues, evidentiary rulings, instructional claims, juror-misconduct and penalty-phase constitutionality, and found no reversible error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Johnsen)	Held
Change of venue	Publicity was moderate and long‑attenuated; community size and other factors did not require transfer	Pretrial publicity was inflammatory and pervasive such that fair trial in county was unlikely	Denial affirmed: court reasonably found publicity not likely to prevent fair trial; remoteness and survey flaws supported decision
Admissibility of jailhouse informant testimony (Massiah/agent)	Holland acted on his own initiative; DA did not direct elicitation and made no promises when information was first obtained	Holland was a government agent after interactions with investigator Antone; statements elicited in absence of counsel therefore inadmissible	Admitted: Holland not a government agent under totality of circumstances; statements and written confession properly admitted
Accomplice instruction/corroboration re: Landrum	Landrum was at most an accessory and immunized witness; accomplice instruction not required	Landrum was accomplice whose testimony needed accomplice warnings and corroboration instruction	No error: evidence insufficient to treat Landrum as accomplice requiring automatic accomplice instructions; jury instructed on witness credibility sufficed
Prosecutor and defense statements about reasonable doubt	Prosecutor’s and defense remarks misstated reasonable doubt standard; People argues instructions cured any misstatements	Statements diluted burden and shifted obligation to defendant; prejudicial error requiring reversal	Misstatements likely misleading but harmless: court instructions (CALJIC) and defense rebuttal removed reasonable probability of conviction on lesser standard

Key Cases Cited

Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (Massiah rule: post‑arraignment elicitation by government agent violates Sixth Amendment)
Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (government use of private persons as agents analyzed under Massiah line)
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (victim impact evidence admissible in capital sentencing)
Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (impermissible to lead jury to believe responsibility for death sentence rests elsewhere)
People v. Coffman & Marlow, 34 Cal.4th 1 (standard for informant‑agent and suppression rulings; factual review)
People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566 (chain‑of‑custody principles for forensic evidence)
People v. Hill, 17 Cal.4th 800 (prosecutorial misstatements about reasonable doubt can be reversible error)