State v. Johnson
994 N.E.2d 896
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Brandon Johnson was tried by jury on multiple criminal charges in Hamilton County and convicted on several counts of passing bad checks, theft, and aggravated theft related to a check-floating scheme.
- The Cincinnati Enquirer published an online article during trial containing statements about the case and other defendants; portions referenced possible additional charges and aggregated monetary figures.
- The trial court conducted individualized voir dire after becoming aware of the article, dismissed one juror who recalled the article, and instructed remaining jurors to avoid media coverage.
- Agent Axt and Prosecutor Berghausen disclosed information to the reporter; the judge harshly criticized their conduct but ultimately allowed the trial to continue.
- The court denied Johnson’s motion for a mistrial; defense counsel conducted a limited voir dire, and the judge ultimately found the seated jurors could be fair and impartial.
- Johnson appealed, challenging prosecutorial comments, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the trial court’s refusal to grant a mistrial; the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there prejudicial prosecutorial conduct requiring reversal? | State | Johnson | No prejudice; voir dire cured potential harm; first assignment overruled. |
| Was defense counsel ineffective for not more thoroughly questioning jurors and not impeaching the verdict? | State | Johnson | Not deficient performance; strategic choice; no demonstrated prejudice. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying a mistrial after publication of the article? | State | Johnson | No abuse of discretion; individualized voir dire and circumstances supported denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Craven, 35 Ohio St.2d 18 (Ohio 1973) (per se prejudicial impact of media during trial can require mistrial)
- State v. Dute, 2003-Ohio-2774 (Ohio 2003) (individualized voir dire favored where media exposure occurred; mistrial not automatic)
- State v. Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 2000) (Evid.R. 606(B) juror testimony limits in post-verdict challenges; evidence needed for outside influence)