2025 WI App 23
Wis. Ct. App.2025Background
- Alan M. Johnson shot and killed his brother-in-law, K.M., claiming a history of abuse and seeking evidence of child pornography on K.M.’s computer at the time of the shooting.
- Johnson was originally charged with first-degree intentional homicide and armed burglary but was acquitted of burglary and intentional homicide charges; he was convicted of first-degree reckless homicide.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a new trial after finding instructional errors in the first trial.
- On retrial, Johnson was charged with first-degree reckless homicide with use of a dangerous weapon; the court denied his motion to admit evidence of images from the victim’s computer.
- During jury deliberations at the second trial, a juror improperly looked up the “castle doctrine,” prompting Johnson to move for a mistrial.
- The jury convicted Johnson of second-degree reckless homicide, use of a dangerous weapon; Johnson appealed, raising issues regarding the mistrial motion, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Johnson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistrial re: juror castle doctrine | Juror's internet research tainted the jury, warranting mistrial | Curative instruction/removal of phones was sufficient | No mistrial; mitigating steps enough |
| Exclusion of computer image evidence | Excluded evidence deprived him of fair defense | Admitting images prejudicial/confusing; evidence not required | Exclusion proper; court not required to view images, prejudice outweighs value |
| Provocation jury instruction | Provocation instruction with intent language violated double jeopardy | Instruction was lawful; addresses privilege limitations | No error; instruction correct, no double jeopardy |
| Curative instruction (castle doctrine info) | Should have explained castle doctrine’s meaning or applied law | Curative instruction sufficient and matched Johnson’s request | Instruction adequate; no explanation required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Debrow, 408 Wis. 2d 178 (Wis. 2023) (standard for reviewing denial of mistrial motions)
- State v. Eison, 194 Wis. 2d 160 (Wis. 1995) (standard for prejudicial extraneous info to jury)
- State v. Poh, 116 Wis. 2d 510 (Wis. 1984) (evaluating impact of extraneous jury information)
- State v. LaCount, 310 Wis. 2d 85 (Wis. 2008) (presumption that juries follow instructions)
- State v. Henning, 273 Wis. 2d 352 (Wis. 2004) (explanation of double jeopardy clause protections)