State v. Johnson
2014 Ohio 494
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Eric Johnson was indicted for kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of felonious assault, attempted murder, related firearm specifications, and petty theft after James Keith was robbed and shot multiple times on August 26, 2012.
- Keith survived extensive wounds, identified Johnson (nickname “E”) and codefendant John Alexander (nickname “Junior”) from photo arrays administered by a blind administrator, and made an in-court ID.
- At trial the jury convicted Johnson of all counts; the court merged certain counts for sentencing purposes and the state elected to sentence on aggravated robbery and attempted murder.
- The court imposed a three-year firearm specification consecutive to two nine-year prison terms, ordered to run consecutively for a total of 21 years.
- Johnson appealed, raising six assignments of error including allied-offense merger, propriety of consecutive sentences, ineffective assistance of counsel (challenge to photo array procedures), manifest weight of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and failure to hold a Remmer hearing after post-verdict juror contact.
- The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting each of Johnson’s challenges after reviewing the record and applicable law.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Johnson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggravated robbery and attempted murder are allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25 | The conduct showed separate acts/animus: robbery completed when items taken; later shooting was a separate, escalatory act | The robbery and shootings were part of same conduct and should merge as allied offenses | Not allied; convictions may be separately sentenced (merger rejected) |
| Whether trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Court made required findings: necessary to protect public/punish, not disproportionate, and harm so great as to require consecutive terms | Consecutive sentences were an abuse of discretion / lacked statutory findings | Findings satisfied statutory requirements; consecutive 21-year aggregate affirmed |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge photo-array reliability and other trial matters | Photo arrays were administered by a blind administrator following protocol; objections would lack merit | Counsel should have challenged array as unduly suggestive and objected to prosecutor’s characterizations | No deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; identification procedure not unduly suggestive; claim denied |
| Whether a Remmer hearing was required after Johnson’s grandmother contacted a juror post-verdict | Any private juror contact is presumptively prejudicial, but here contact occurred after verdict and juror did not recall association | Failure to hold a Remmer hearing deprived Johnson of due process/biased jury | No Remmer hearing required given contact post-verdict, lack of evidence of prejudicial communication; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 942 N.E.2d 1061 (Ohio 2010) (explaining allied-offenses analysis requires examining defendant’s actual conduct)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1954) (private communications with jurors are presumptively prejudicial and require notice and hearing)
- State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (explaining manifest-weight standard)