People v. Johnson
2013 IL App (2d) 110535
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Johnson was charged with two counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon and one count of misdemeanor domestic battery arising from April 29, 2010 incidents and weapons found in Hausler's home.
- Evidence showed Johnson choked, grabbed, and shoved Hausler; police recovered a handgun and ammunition from Johnson's room the next day.
- The three charges were joined for a single jury trial.
- The trial court admitted other-domestic-violence incidents and related threats under 115-7.4 as non-propensity evidence; the threats were also admitted for purposes other than propensity.
- Johnson was convicted on all charges and sentenced to concurrent terms; the appellate court later reversed and remanded for new separate trials due to ineffective joinder and erroneous jury instructions.
- The ruling remands for separate trials on the domestic battery charge and the weapon-by-felon charges; note that the decision addresses double jeopardy considerations on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was joinder of the weapons and domestic battery charges effective? | Johnson’s counsel joined charges for convenience. | Joinder allowed improper prejudice and violated Strickland. | Joinder was improper; ineffective assistance; remand for separate trials. |
| Were the threats testimony and prior incidents admissible as other-crimes evidence? | Threats were admissible to contextualize reporting delay and possession. | Threats and prior incidents should be limited or excluded as propensity evidence. | Admission of threats and related incidents required tighter limiting instructions; reversible error. |
| Did the trial court use a defective jury instruction on other-crimes evidence? | Instruction should permit consideration of other-crimes evidence for specified purposes. | No sophisticated tailoring; risk of confusion. | Instruction was improperly tailored; plain error; warrants new trials. |
| Is the cumulative error doctrine satisfied and does it require reversal? | Cumulative errors affected trial fairness. | No reversible aggregate error beyond each issue. | Cumulative error requires reversal and new trials. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dabbs, 239 Ill. 2d 277 (Ill. 2010) (statutory exceptions to propensity rule for domestic batteries)
- People v. Montgomery, 47 Ill. 2d 510 (Ill. 1971) (prior conviction admissible for impeachment only under strict limits)
- People v. Walston, 386 Ill. App. 3d 598 (Ill. App. 2008) (joinder factors and discretion in severance; time/location proximity matters)
- People v. Quiroz, 257 Ill. App. 3d 576 (Ill. App. 1993) (evidence linking offenses; escape context)
- People v. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d 353 (Ill. 1991) (admissibility balancing of other-crimes evidence; abuse of discretion standard)
- People v. Heard, 187 Ill. 2d 36 (Ill. 1999) (requirement to tailor and timely instruct on other-crimes evidence)
- People v. Brown, 319 Ill. App. 3d 89 (Ill. App. 2001) (instruction flaw reversible despite absence of objection)
- People v. Housby, 84 Ill. 2d 415 (Ill. 1981) (overall instruction adequacy; holistic review)
- People v. Ramirez?, (not listed) () (not cited in opinion)