State v. Alan M. Johnson, 948 N.W.2d 377

Background

Defendant Alan M. Johnson entered his brother‑in‑law K.M.’s home uninvited around 11:45 p.m. to check K.M.’s computer for child pornography; he stayed ~2.5 hours and located illicit images.
Johnson brought a loaded handgun, claiming fear because K.M. had previously abused family members and possessed child pornography.
Around 2:00 a.m. K.M. discovered Johnson in the computer room, closed the door, then (according to Johnson) lunged/attacked; Johnson shot K.M. five times, killing him.
At trial Johnson asserted self‑defense and requested a perfect self‑defense instruction plus lesser‑included instructions (2nd‑degree reckless homicide and negligent homicide); the court refused the perfect self‑defense and two lesser instructions but allowed imperfect self‑defense and first‑degree reckless homicide.
The court also limited evidence about what Johnson found that night on K.M.’s computer; Johnson testified about prior discovery of images and the court required him to testify before admitting McMorris/other‑acts evidence.
The jury acquitted Johnson of first‑ and second‑degree intentional homicide and burglary, convicted him of first‑degree reckless homicide; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing a perfect self‑defense instruction (including effect of the castle doctrine on a trespasser)	Castle doctrine presumptively makes homeowner’s use of force lawful; as a trespasser Johnson could not reasonably believe K.M. was unlawfully interfering	Some evidence (Johnson’s testimony plus witness McMorris evidence) supported a reasonable belief that K.M. attacked to prevent reporting of child porn, so perfect self‑defense instruction was warranted	Reversed: court erred; jury should have been instructed on perfect self‑defense because "some evidence" supported it and castle presumption is jury‑resolvable where nexus to criminal activity exists
Whether the court erred in refusing lesser‑included instruction for second‑degree reckless homicide	Evidence (five shots, victim partially unclothed) shows utter disregard for life; no reasonable basis for lesser instruction	Evidence could support reckless but not "utter disregard"; jury could convict on 2d‑degree reckless	Reversed as to 2d‑degree reckless: court should have instructed jury; error invaded the jury’s province
Whether the court erred in refusing negligent‑homicide (dangerous weapon) instruction	Defendant brought a loaded gun and intended to use it; conduct was intentional not negligent	A request for negligent homicide was argued as alternative; defendant disputes pure negligence given his claimed self‑defense	Affirmed: no reasonable basis for negligent‑homicide instruction because evidence showed intentional conduct
Whether exclusion of evidence that Johnson found child pornography on K.M.’s computer that night was erroneous	Evidence was unfairly prejudicial and improper other‑acts proof	Evidence was highly probative of victim’s motive/state of mind and the reasonableness of Johnson’s belief; exclusion undermined right to present a defense	Reversed: exclusion erroneous; evidence should have been admitted (probative value outweighed prejudice)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Head, 255 Wis. 2d 194 (2002) (defines "some evidence" threshold and elements for perfect self‑defense)
State v. Stietz, 375 Wis. 2d 572 (2017) (clarifies low bar for self‑defense instruction and that courts must not weigh evidence)
McMorris v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 144 (1973) (permitting testimony about victim’s violent character known to defendant to show reasonableness of fear)
State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768 (1998) (three‑step test for admissibility of other‑acts evidence)
State v. Muentner, 138 Wis. 2d 374 (1987) (two‑part test for submitting lesser‑included offenses)
State v. Jensen, 236 Wis. 2d 521 (2000) (analysis of "utter disregard for human life" standard)
State v. Miller, 320 Wis. 2d 724 (2009) (discusses interplay of self‑defense and utter‑disregard inquiry)
Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921) (observes that in violent encounters detached reflection is not demanded)
Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957) (double jeopardy rule regarding implicit acquittal when jury convicts on lesser included offense)