State v. Johnson
299 Kan. 890
| Kan. | 2014Background
- In 2000 Johnson and co‑defendant Anthony Payne went to the victim’s home; the victim was stabbed to death and items (PlayStation CDs, drugs, cash) were taken.
- Physical evidence tied Johnson to the scene: his fingerprint on a CD, blood on his boots matching the victim’s DNA, bloody clothing/witness ID, and boot‑sole pattern matching a print at the scene.
- Johnson pled nolo contendere to first‑degree premeditated murder (hard‑25 life) and aggravated robbery (concurrent 71 months).
- In 2011 Johnson filed a pro se K.S.A. 21‑2512 motion for postconviction DNA testing of a knife he asserted was the murder weapon, claiming DNA on the knife could be exculpatory.
- The State opposed; district court summarily denied the motion without appointing counsel or holding an evidentiary hearing. Johnson appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of novel theory (third‑party DNA) | Motion implicitly raised that DNA might show a third party present | State urged the third‑party theory was raised first on appeal and not preserved | Court held Johnson’s pro se motion was broad enough; issue considered |
| Whether K.S.A. 21‑2512(c) authorizes testing that may produce exculpatory evidence | Testing knife DNA could reveal unidentified third‑party DNA that would exculpate or lessen his culpability/sentence | DNA testing cannot produce noncumulative exculpatory evidence because Johnson’s identity/involvement was never disputed | Denied: testing would not produce exculpatory evidence relevant to guilt or sentence |
| Whether third‑party DNA could justify sentence reduction | Presence of another perpetrator could lessen Johnson’s culpability and affect sentence | Sentencing focuses on defendant’s personal culpability; mere presence of other DNA does not show lesser culpability here | Denied: no reasonable basis shown that third‑party DNA would alter sentencing |
| Standard for summary denial of DNA testing | N/A (procedural) | Summary denial reviewed de novo; statute requires testing only if it may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence | Court applied de novo review and upheld summary denial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lackey, 295 Kan. 816, 286 P.3d 859 (addresses definition of exculpatory under K.S.A. 21‑2512)
- Bruner v. State, 277 Kan. 603, 88 P.3d 214 (pro se motions for DNA testing construed liberally)
- State v. Smith, 34 Kan. App. 2d 368, 119 P.3d 679 (DNA testing unnecessary where identity/involvement was undisputed)
- State v. Bailey, 251 Kan. 527, 834 P.2d 1353 (discussion of when codefendant sentences may be relevant)
- State v. Aikins, 261 Kan. 346, 932 P.2d 408 (definition of exculpatory evidence in Brady context)