People v. Johnson
211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 425
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Dec. 29, 2013 defendant William Johnson’s car crossed lanes and struck a bicyclist; the bicyclist later died from the injuries. Defendant left the scene.
- Evidence showed defendant consumed alcohol and prescription medications before driving; police later matched vehicle parts to defendant’s car.
- First trial (Aug. 2014): jury convicted Johnson of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and hit-and-run with injury; jury hung on second-degree murder (mistrial as to count 1).
- Retrial (Feb. 2015) on second-degree murder only: the trial court told jurors generally that defendant had been convicted “of two of the three charges” in the first trial but did not identify the gross vehicular manslaughter conviction.
- The retrial jury convicted Johnson of second-degree murder; court imposed aggregate sentence of 18 years to life (with one count stayed).
- On appeal the court found instructional errors at retrial (failure to inform jurors of the specific prior conviction and a misleading modification of the murder instruction) and reversed the murder conviction while affirming other convictions.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Johnson’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not informing the retrial jury that the first jury had convicted Johnson of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated | Trial court’s general statement that defendant was convicted of “two of three charges” was adequate; details of prior proceedings need not be disclosed | Retrial jury should be told the specific prior conviction (gross vehicular manslaughter) to avoid misleading all-or-nothing choice and allow defense to argue intermediate culpability | Reversed murder conviction: error to withhold the specific prior conviction; Batchelor controlling — jurors need context so retrial isn’t an unfair all-or-nothing posture |
| Whether giving an optional CALCRIM No. 520 duty-related sentence (equating failure to perform a duty with a negligent/injurious act) was proper | Language was at most superfluous and harmless because evidence of implied malice was strong | The added duty language was confusing/misleading (no special affirmative duty at issue) and could have led jurors to equate negligence with murder | Reversal also supported on this separate instructional error; the duty language was erroneous and prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Batchelor, 229 Cal.App.4th 1102 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (trial court must avoid creating misleading all-or-nothing posture on retrial; jury may need to be informed of prior conviction arising from same facts)
- People v. Edwards, 54 Cal.3d 787 (Cal. 1991) (discusses when details of prior proceedings must be disclosed to subsequent juries)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (jury should not be forced into an unwarranted all-or-nothing choice; truth-ascertainment function)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (standard for reversal for nonconstitutional instructional error — reasonable probability of a different outcome)
- People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (Cal. 1981) (implied malice requires a subjective appreciation of the risk)
- People v. Gay, 42 Cal.4th 1195 (Cal. 2008) (when conflicting instructions are given, appellate court cannot know which instruction jury followed)
- People v. Hicks, 243 Cal.App.4th 343 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (contrasting approach; review granted by California Supreme Court on whether retrial juries must be told prior gross vehicular manslaughter conviction)