State Of Washington v. Bradford Marselas Johnson
75367-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- On September 28, 2015 two men robbed a medical marijuana dispensary in Everett, threatening the clerk with what appeared to be a gun and stealing money and marijuana.
- Police identified Bradford Johnson and Garrett Comer (aka Garrett Corner in the opinion) as suspects; Comer pleaded guilty and implicated Johnson in a plea statement.
- At Johnson's June 2016 trial the sole contested issue was identity of Comer’s accomplice; the clerk and a friend of Comer identified Johnson, and store surveillance showed an accomplice image.
- Comer testified for the defense that his accomplice was an unidentified "black male," not Johnson; Comer described a forearm tattoo he believed the accomplice had as saying "Loyalty." Police testimony showed Johnson does not have a "Loyalty" tattoo.
- During closing the prosecutor misstated testimony, asserting Comer initially described the accomplice’s tattoo as "Respect" (which was actually Comer's own tattoo) and argued Comer was fabricating; defense objected but was overruled.
- Johnson appealed, arguing prosecutorial misconduct from the misstatements; the court affirmed, finding the prosecutor misspoke but Johnson showed no prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Johnson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating witness tattoo testimony | Prosecutor argued reasonable inference that Comer was not credible and had confused his own tattoo with the accomplice’s; the comments were permissible argument on credibility | Prosecutor misstated evidence (said Comer first described "Respect" for the accomplice) and expressed a personal opinion about Comer’s veracity, depriving Johnson of a fair trial | The prosecutor misstated the evidence (misspoke) but did not express an impermissible personal opinion or deliberately mislead; no prejudice shown, conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Pers. Restraint of Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d 696, 286 P.3d 673 (2012) (setting standard for prosecutorial misconduct review: must be improper and prejudicial)
- State v. Stith, 71 Wn. App. 14, 856 P.2d 415 (1993) (prosecutor may comment on witness veracity without expressing personal opinion)
- State v. Guizzotti, 60 Wn. App. 289, 803 P.2d 808 (1991) (prosecutor may not mislead jury by misstating evidence)