State v. Johnson
2017 Ohio 7257
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Shawn M. Johnson was indicted for three counts of rape of a child under 13 based on allegations by his girlfriend’s 12‑year‑old daughter. A jury was impaneled and sworn and trial began.
- During defense counsel’s opening statement, counsel described graphic, specific instances of the victim’s sexual activity (sex with another boy on vacation, sexual messages/images, oral sex on a bus, marijuana use).
- The state moved for a mistrial under Ohio’s rape‑shield statute, R.C. 2907.02(D); the court recessed to permit counsel to research and argue admissibility and possible cures.
- The trial court concluded the references violated the rape‑shield law, a curative instruction would be ineffective, and declared a mistrial based on manifest necessity.
- Johnson moved to dismiss on double‑jeopardy grounds, arguing waiver by the state and that a curative instruction would suffice; he did not renew an argument that the contested evidence was actually admissible under the confrontation clause or statutory exceptions. The trial court denied the motion.
- The Fourth District affirmed, holding (1) the rape‑shield statute barred the specific evidence and Johnson forfeited any confrontation/ admissibility claim by not pressing it below, and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial because manifest necessity existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel’s opening statement improperly introduced victim’s specific sexual activity in violation of R.C. 2907.02(D) | Opening statements referenced inadmissible, inflammatory sexual‑activity evidence barred by the rape‑shield statute | Statements were admissible to show the child’s motive/bias to fabricate and/or protected by confrontation rights | Court held the rape‑shield statute barred the specific graphic evidence; defendant forfeited confrontation claim by not raising it in the dismissal motion |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial for manifest necessity | Mistrial was warranted because the opening statement so prejudiced the jury that a curative instruction would be ineffective | A timely curative instruction could have remedied any prejudice; mistrial was not manifest necessity | Court held trial court properly exercised sound discretion, considered alternatives, and acted deliberately; mistrial was justified by manifest necessity |
| Whether double jeopardy barred retrial after mistrial | Double jeopardy does not bar retrial when mistrial is justified by manifest necessity | Double jeopardy bars retrial because mistrial was unnecessary/avoidable | Court held double jeopardy does not apply because manifest necessity excused retrial; denial of dismissal affirmed |
| Whether trial court should have considered admissibility under confrontation clause or statutory exceptions before declaring mistrial | Trial court considered arguments and relevant precedent; defendant failed to preserve/adopt admissibility theory below | Defendant argued confrontation clause and 404(B)/other‑acts admissibility at hearing but did not press those grounds in motion to dismiss | Court held defendant forfeited the confrontation/admissibility argument by not raising it in dismissal motion; even on merits rape‑shield balancing would bar the graphic specifics |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978) (trial judge’s mistrial decision from prejudicial statements deserves substantial deference)
- United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579 (U.S. 1824) (standard that a "high degree" of necessity is required to justify mistrial)
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1982) (double jeopardy bars retrial absent defendant consent or manifest necessity)
- State v. Williams, 21 Ohio St.3d 33 (Ohio 1986) (circumstances where proof of victim’s sexual history may be admissible when probative of a fact at issue)
- State v. Gunnell, 132 Ohio St.3d 442 (Ohio 2012) (discussion of when jeopardy attaches and review standards for mistrial)
- State v. Craig, 110 Ohio St.3d 306 (Ohio 2006) (balancing state interests under rape‑shield law against probative value of excluded evidence)