State of Tennessee v. Johnathan Robert Leonard
M2016-00269-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Apr 24, 2017Background
- Defendant Johnathan Robert Leonard was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of rape of a child, two counts of soliciting sexual exploitation of a child, and one count of aggravated sexual battery; effective sentence 96 years.
- Two young girls (ages 7 and 9) testified to repeated sexual acts and exposure to pornography while living with Defendant and their mother; Defendant denied the allegations.
- Defense argued the victims’ detailed testimony developed over time while living with a mother hostile to Defendant and suggested coaching; prosecutor emphasized victims’ bravery and reliability.
- Defendant filed a motion for new trial raising prosecutorial misconduct (16 comments) and jury-selection irregularities (re-use of panel, alleged improper rehabilitation of a veniremember, exhaustion of peremptory strikes, and a juror’s alleged nondisclosure of law-enforcement application).
- Trial court denied the motion; on appeal the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed one preserved claim plenarily (comment referencing Alicia Lipscomb) and the rest for plain error, and rejected all claims, affirming convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Leonard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct (preserved comment re: Alicia Lipscomb) | Statement was improper but isolated and not outcome-determinative | Prosecutor referred to facts outside record about defense witness (improper) | Comment was cut off by objection and sustained; no prejudice — no reversible error |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (other 15 comments) | Many remarks were routine, responsive, or harmless; most objections not preserved | Cumulative inflammatory and improper remarks deprived him of fair trial; plain error exists | Majority waived by failure to object or include in motion for new trial; plain-error review fails — no relief |
| Voir dire / reused jury panel and juror rehabilitation | Use of same panel and voir dire commentary was permissible; no showing of juror bias | Reuse of panel advantaged State; trial court and prosecutors ingratiated previous jury and coerced equivocal veniremembers into service | No evidence any juror formed disqualifying opinion; trial court did not abuse discretion; any challenge for cause preserved by using peremptories; no reversible error |
| Juror nondisclosure & exhaustion of peremptory strikes | No proof juror willfully concealed disqualifying law-enforcement ties; record showed employment began after trial | Juror Leonard concealed he had applied to sheriff’s office; Defendant forced to exhaust strikes and was left with biased juror | Juror testified employment started after trial; no willful concealment established; request to supplement record denied; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147 (Tenn. 2001) (trial court’s discretion in controlling argument; abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Goltz, 111 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) (categories of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument)
- State v. Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (plain-error test factors)
- Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1988) (defendant must be given the peremptory strikes provided by state law; exhaustion does not alone require extra strikes)
- State v. Hester, 324 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2010) (cumulative-error doctrine; rare application)
- Howell v. State, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993) (purpose of voir dire; juror impartiality standard)