People v. Johnson
E063172
Cal. Ct. App.Oct 21, 2016Background
- On Dec. 29, 2013 defendant William Johnson’s car crossed into oncoming traffic and struck a bicyclist; the bicyclist later died of his injuries.
- Evidence showed Johnson had consumed alcohol and prescription medications that day; investigators matched vehicle parts to the crash and Johnson attempted to conceal vehicle damage.
- First trial (Aug. 2014): jury convicted Johnson of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and hit-and-run with injury; jury deadlocked on second-degree murder (mistrial as to murder).
- Retrial (Feb. 2015) limited to the second-degree murder count; the court told the new jury only that defendant had been convicted "of two of the three charges," not specifying the manslaughter conviction from the first trial.
- The retrial jury convicted Johnson of second-degree murder; court imposed aggregate sentence of 18 years to life (with sentence on count 2 stayed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the retrial jury should have been told the specific conviction (gross vehicular manslaughter) from the first trial | Keeping the second jury unaware avoids undue prejudice and is permitted; Batchelor is wrong | Failure to disclose the specific prior conviction deprived the retrial jury of necessary context and produced an unfair all-or-nothing choice | Reversed: trial court erred by not informing jury of prior manslaughter conviction; error probably affected outcome |
| Whether informing jury of prior conviction conflicts with statutes or precedent (e.g., §1180, Edwards) | Disclosure conflicts with rule that new trial puts parties in same position as if no trial, and precedent suggests court need not detail prior proceedings | Batchelor and principles about avoiding an unwarranted all-or-nothing choice support disclosure to give proper context | Court rejects People’s argument; §1180 inapplicable here and Edwards does not bar disclosure of the prior conviction |
| Whether allowing only murder/excusable homicide instructions (no intermediate culpability) on retrial was proper given the first jury’s manslaughter verdict | Limiting issues focuses jurors on murder elements; prior verdicts shouldn’t dictate jury instructions | Omitting intermediate culpability and not informing jurors of the manslaughter verdict forced an improper all-or-nothing choice | Court finds error: retrial jury lacked context of first jury’s resolution of intermediate culpability; prejudicial under Watson standard |
| Whether the court’s modification of CALCRIM No. 520 (duty language) was proper | Not argued by People on appeal | The added "legal duty" language was confusing and could equate negligence with murder | Court finds the added duty language erroneous and would independently warrant reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Batchelor, 229 Cal.App.4th 1102 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (second jury should be informed of prior gross vehicular manslaughter conviction to avoid unfair all-or-nothing choice)
- People v. Edwards, 54 Cal.3d 787 (Cal. 1991) (trial court need not recount full history of prior proceedings to a subsequent jury)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (forcing juries into an unwarranted all-or-nothing choice undermines truth-ascertainment)
- People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (Cal. 1981) (implied malice requires a subjective finding that defendant appreciated the risk)