State v. Johnson
308 Neb. 331
| Neb. | 2021Background
- June 15–21, 2015: a series of five knife robberies in Omaha; one victim was stabbed and bit the assailant’s hand during a struggle. Surveillance video of one robbery was released.
- A family tip (stepdaughter) and video led police to Thomas E. Johnson, Jr.; officers found bite marks on his hand and brought him to police headquarters on June 23, 2015.
- Det. Martin read Miranda warnings; Johnson initially waived and spoke, then said at ~8:03 a.m. “you can talk to my lawyer” (court found not an unambiguous invocation). Martin paused questioning, returned ~9:45 a.m. and made statements likely to elicit incriminating responses; Johnson unambiguously requested counsel ~10:30 a.m. and questioning ceased. Photo lineups (administered by officers who did not know the target) produced identifications by eight witnesses.
- Johnson was charged with five robberies, five weapon counts, one second-degree assault, and attempted escape. Competency proceedings and commitments to LRC preceded trial; Johnson asserted insanity under § 29-2203.
- Bench trial: no live testimony on offense elements; sanity contested via expert testimony—Dr. Bruce Gutnik (insanity) vs. Dr. Farid Karimi (malingering). Court credited Karimi, rejected the insanity defense, admitted the challenged statements and IDs, convicted Johnson, and imposed lengthy prison terms within statutory ranges (concurrent and some consecutive per statute).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of custodial statements (Miranda) | Warnings given; Johnson’s 8:03 remark was not an unambiguous invocation; meaningful questioning did not occur after an invocation; later talk stopped once counsel was requested | Johnson unambiguously invoked counsel at 8:03; Martin resumed interrogation after invocation, so statements are inadmissible | Denied. 8:03 remark not an unambiguous invocation; unambiguous invocation occurred ~10:30 and questioning ceased thereafter; resumed remarks ~9:45 did not violate Miranda under facts |
| Suppression of photo lineup identifications (due process) | Lineups not unduly suggestive: photos comparable, administrators blind to target, no encouragement; IDs were timely and reliable | Lineup procedures were unduly suggestive (and later PD changes show flaw), so IDs were tainted | Denied. Lineups were not impermissibly suggestive; no preliminary reliability hearing required; identifications admissible |
| Insanity defense (burden on defendant) | Expert Karimi: Johnson malingering; LRC observations and testing discredit psychosis; even possible drug-induced symptoms not legally insanity | Expert Gutnik: Johnson psychotic at offense time (delusions about "Pablo"), incapable of knowing right/wrong | Court credited Karimi over Gutnik; sufficient evidence supported finding Johnson failed to prove insanity by preponderance |
| Sentencing (excessive) | Sentences within statutory limits; court considered factors; concurrent sentences and short weapon terms mitigated total exposure | Court failed to adequately weigh mitigating factors (mental illness, low IQ, substance abuse); sentence excessive | Denied. No abuse of discretion; court considered mitigating factors; sentences within statutory range and justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings and an unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel to terminate questioning)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012) (two-part due process test for out-of-court identifications: suggestiveness and reliability)
- State v. Connelly, 307 Neb. 495 (2020) (appellate standard for Miranda suppression rulings; interrogation includes words likely to elicit incriminating responses)
- State v. Pope, 305 Neb. 912 (2020) (due process limits on identification procedures; testing reliability at trial when police conduct non-suggestive lineups)
- State v. Newman, 290 Neb. 572 (2015) (discussing Perry and the two-step identification inquiry)
- State v. Stack, 307 Neb. 773 (2020) (verdict on insanity will not be disturbed absent insufficient evidence)
- State v. Senteney, 307 Neb. 702 (2020) (abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of sentences)
- State v. Price, 306 Neb. 38 (2020) (enumerating sentencing factors to be considered)