State of West Virginia v. Donald A. Johnson
16-0531
| W. Va. | Sep 1, 2017Background
- Donald A. Johnson, a high-school librarian, was indicted for multiple offenses including two counts of soliciting a minor via computer, distribution/display of obscene matter to a minor, use of obscene matter with intent to seduce a minor, and possession of material depicting a minor in sexually explicit conduct; the victim (S.M.) was a 15-year-old student.
- Trial evidence included S.M.’s in-court testimony about sexual text communications and exchanged nude images, deleted computer search history showing how to clear data, e-mails between Johnson and a psychic (Jackie Tomlin), and journal entries seized from Johnson.
- The State did not admit the actual text messages or locate a surreptitious-texting app, but S.M. testified in detail about texts and images; the jury convicted Johnson on the first five counts and acquitted or dismissed other counts.
- The circuit court admitted 18 e-mails (Jan–Apr 2014) and select journal entries over Johnson’s objections; it excluded a proposed expert (physician’s assistant) who would have opined from images on age grounds.
- Post-trial motions challenging sufficiency of evidence, admission of e-mails/journal (relevance, Rule 403, Rule 404(b) issues), and exclusion of expert testimony were denied; Johnson appealed and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State (Plaintiff) Argument | Johnson (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Counts 1–4 | S.M.’s testimony corroborated by deleted searches, e-mails, journal; jury could credit her account | Convictions unsupported because texts/app not produced and app not found | Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Admissibility of e-mails (relevance/Rule 403) | E-mails were intrinsic to the relationship/crime and corroborative; probative > prejudicial | E-mails irrelevant and unduly prejudicial | Affirmed — e-mails relevant, intrinsic to charged conduct, more probative than prejudicial |
| Rule 404(b)/need for in camera hearing before admitting e-mails | E-mails were intrinsic (not extrinsic bad acts) so 404(b) framework/in camera hearing unnecessary | Court should have treated e-mails as 404(b) evidence and held in camera hearing; exclude post‑offense e-mails | Affirmed — e-mails were intrinsic/res gestae; no 404(b) hearing required; timing of e-mails does not bar admissibility for intent/motive evidence |
| Admissibility of journal entries (relevance/403) | Journal entries were part of the same course of conduct and corroborative | Journal entries irrelevant or unduly prejudicial | Affirmed — journal entries intrinsic and admissible, probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Exclusion of proposed expert (age-from-photo opinion) | Expert lacked specialized training in pediatrics/age estimation; not qualified to assist jury on photographic age opinion | Exclusion prevented meaningful defense on Count 5; proposed expert would show images depicted adults | Affirmed — trial court acted within discretion; physician assistant not qualified to opine on age from images |
| Alleged prosecutorial "shotgunning" of other bad-act evidence | State: witnesses/evidence were relevant to the intrinsic course of conduct | Johnson: cumulative witnesses referenced e-mails/journal to overwhelm jury with other bad acts | Affirmed — admission was proper because evidence was intrinsic to crimes charged |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657 (1995) (standard for appellate sufficiency review and deference to jury credibility findings)
- State v. Juntilla, 227 W. Va. 492 (2011) (de novo review for denial of judgment of acquittal)
- State v. LaRock, 196 W. Va. 294 (1996) (principles on sufficiency and appellate review in criminal cases)
- State v. Cyrus, 222 W. Va. 214 (2008) (distinguishing intrinsic evidence from extrinsic Rule 404(b) evidence)
- Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W. Va. 512 (1995) (two-step inquiry for expert witness qualification)
- Helmick v. Potomac Edison Co., 185 W. Va. 269 (1991) (trial court discretion on expert admissibility)
- State v. McGinnis, 193 W. Va. 147 (1994) (procedures for 404(b) offers and in camera hearings)
- State v. Dolin, 176 W. Va. 688 (1986) (discussion of in camera hearing practice for 404(b) evidence)