State Of Washington v. James Johnson
75429-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 26, 2017Background
- James Larry Johnson III was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape of a child for repeatedly anally penetrating M.D., an 8–9 year‑old boy Johnson babysat.
- The State introduced ER 404(b) evidence of two prior incidents involving cousins: (1) M.G. (age 9–12) alleged anal penetration by Johnson while he babysat her alone; (2) P.P.J. (age 6) alleged repeated genital/buttocks touching during "fake wrestling."
- The trial court admitted one specific act as to M.G. (anal rape while babysitting) and one incident as to P.P.J. (repeated fondling during play‑wrestling), issuing findings and a limiting instruction after an ER 403 balancing analysis.
- Johnson appealed, challenging admission of the other‑acts evidence under ER 404(b), multiple community custody conditions imposed at sentencing, and raising numerous claims in a Statement of Additional Grounds (SAG).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, held the 404(b) rulings were not an abuse of discretion, but remanded to strike or modify several community custody conditions (curfew, alcohol prohibition, ban on sex‑related businesses, ban on sexually explicit materials, and to allow supervised contact with his child).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Johnson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior acts under ER 404(b) as common scheme or plan | Prior acts (M.G., P.P.J.) show a repeated plan: grooming/trust, isolation or opportunity, similar precipitating circumstance (wrestling), and similar sexual conduct — probative and not substantially outweighed by prejudice | Acts insufficiently similar; opportunistic conduct not evidence of a deliberate scheme; P.P.J. incident lacked anal penetration so not similar | Affirmed. Trial court did not abuse discretion: admitted acts were sufficiently similar and properly ER 403 balanced with limiting instruction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for two counts and penetration | M.D. testified abuse occurred more than once and described penetration causing pain in his "butt" using defendant's "boy body part" — supports multiple counts and anal penetration | Testimony did not specify separate incidents or anatomical detail to show anal penetration | Affirmed. Viewing evidence in State's favor, a rational jury could find two rapes and infer anal penetration |
| Community custody conditions: curfew and alcohol ban | State conceded these conditions are not crime‑related | Johnson argued they were unrelated to the crime | Remanded. Court ordered striking both conditions (curfew and alcohol ban) |
| Conditions banning sexually explicit materials and sex‑related businesses | State argued crime‑related and justifies restrictions | Johnson argued not crime‑related and violated First Amendment | Remanded. Court struck bans on sexually explicit materials and sex‑related businesses as insufficiently tied to the factual circumstances of the crime (declined to reach First Amendment claim) |
| Prohibition on contact with minors (no contact with children) | State initially supported broad prohibition but conceded supervised contact for his own child is permissible | Johnson sought supervised contact with his child | Remanded. Condition to be modified: contact with minors allowed under supervision of a responsible adult informed of conviction |
| Vagueness of requirement to disclose dating relationships | State: provision is sufficiently specific and crime‑related | Johnson: provision is unconstitutionally vague | Rejected. Provision held not unconstitutionally vague |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lough, 125 Wn.2d 847 (1995) (common scheme evidence admissible where defendant used a repeated method to drug and rape multiple victims)
- State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405 (2012) (ER 404(b) common scheme/plan framework and standard of review)
- State v. Krause, 82 Wn. App. 688 (1996) (upholding admission of prior molestations showing similar grooming and placement of defendant in position to molest)
- State v. Slocum, 183 Wn. App. 438 (2014) (limits on admissible prior acts where some prior acts were merely opportunistic and not part of a repeated plan)
- State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11 (2003) (common scheme evidence admissible even when prior acts involved different sexual acts, if scheme is substantially similar)
- State v. Norris, 1 Wn. App. 2d 87 (2017) (community custody conditions must be crime‑related as tied to facts of the offense; addressed bans on sexually explicit materials and sex‑related businesses)
- State v. Kinzle, 181 Wn. App. 774 (2014) (discussion of prohibition on sexually explicit materials in child sexual offense cases)