State v. Johnson, 2013 Vt. 116

Johnson was convicted of attempted aggravated murder, kidnapping, lewd and lascivious conduct, unlawful trespass, and habitual offender enhancement after a four-day trial in Washington Superior Court.
Prosecution alleged home invasion with sexual assault, restraint, stabbing of the victim in the neck, and attempts to finish the job; the victim could not identify the perpetrator at the scene.
During voir dire, a prospective juror disclosed knowledge of another case involving Johnson; the court denied mistrial but dismissed the juror and gave curative instructions.
Evidence included a neighbor’s identification of Johnson leaving the scene, ex-girlfriend testimony linking him to the apartment, and DNA/hair analyses with inconclusive or partial results favoring the State.
At the Rule 29 stage, the trial court denied acquittal on all charged elements, including identity, restraint with a knife, and the intent to kill; Johnson was sentenced to life without parole for attempted murder and concurrent habitual-offender sentences.
Johnson challenged the conviction on two main grounds: improper mistrial ruling due to extraneous influence and sufficiency of evidence on identity and intent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Extraneous influence taint requiring mistrial?	Johnson argues the juror’s comments infected the panel and mandated mistrial.	Johnson contends the irregularity tainted the jury and prejudiced the verdict.	No abuse; curative instructions sufficed.
Sufficiency of identity evidence	State contends multiple eyewitness and DNA evidence prove identity beyond reasonable doubt.	Johnson argues inconsistencies in testimony and DNA fail to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence sufficient to identify Johnson as the perpetrator.
Sufficiency of intent to kill	State asserts the stabbing in the throat and surrounding conduct show intent to kill.	Johnson argues lack of direct proof of intent to kill given statements to victim.	There was sufficient evidence of intent to kill.
Rule 29 timing and preservation	Rule 29 motion was timely and properly preserved for review.	Timeliness should be treated as plain error due to the timing of the motion.	Rule 29 motion properly preserved; review proceeded on sufficiency.

State v. Grega, 168 Vt. 363 (Vt. 1998) (trial court’s discretion on mistrial taint reviewed for abuse)
State v. McKeen, 165 Vt. 469 (Vt. 1996) (taint and curative instruction analysis)
State v. Wool, 162 Vt. 342 (Vt. 1994) (extraneous influences and juror impartiality)
State v. Gorbea, 169 Vt. 57 (Vt. 1999) (fact-driven assessment of taint from extraneous influences)
State v. Squiers, 2006 VT 26 (VT 2006) (curative instructions can purge taint of extraneous influence)
State v. Abdi, 2012 VT 4 (VT 2012) (relevance of extraneous information to verdict)
State v. Lee, 2008 VT 128 (VT 2008) (limits on prejudicial emphasis during voir dire)