State v. Johnson (Slip Opinion)
144 Ohio St. 3d 518
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Rayshawn Johnson was convicted in 1998 of aggravated murder with two death specifications (aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery) and sentenced to death; Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal.
- Federal habeas relief was later granted (ineffective assistance at mitigation), and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, resulting in a new mitigation hearing in 2011.
- At the 2011 mitigation hearing the state replayed most trial exhibits, presented witnesses, and the defense presented expanded mitigation (family history, addiction, mental-health evidence, expert testimony, prison conduct, and Johnson’s unsworn statement).
- A new jury in 2011 recommended death; the trial court sentenced Johnson to death in 2012 after reviewing the original trial record.
- On appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court Johnson raised Batson/juror-exclusion claims, ineffective-assistance-of-counsel for voir dire, evidentiary objections to gruesome photos/9‑1‑1 call/media interviews, prosecutorial-misconduct claims, cumulative-error, and argued the sentence was inappropriate under R.C. 2929.05(A).
- The Ohio Supreme Court rejected the procedural and misconduct claims but performed an independent sentence review and vacated the death sentence, holding the aggravators did not outweigh mitigation beyond a reasonable doubt and remanding for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson exclusion of two Black venire members | Johnson: prosecutor used peremptories on jurors Nos. 9 and 45 because of race; trial counsel ineffective for failing to press Batson | State: proffered race-neutral reasons (death-penalty reluctance, incomplete questionnaire, relative with conviction) and panel still included Black jurors | Court: trial court did not clearly err; prosecutor's explanations credible; no ineffective assistance shown |
| Admission of gruesome photos at mitigation | Johnson: photos irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, and cumulative | State: photos relevant to nature/circumstances and repetition allowed to illustrate testimony | Court: admission proper (law-of-the-case from 2000 decision) and multiple showings were not an abuse of discretion |
| Admission of 9‑1‑1 call and 1997 media interviews | Johnson: irrelevant to sentencing and unfairly prejudicial | State: both relate to circumstances of the offense and corroborate witness accounts or consciousness of guilt | Court: admitted; probative value outweighed prejudice; even if marginal, harmless in context |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (false testimony, disparaging witness, closing) | Johnson: prosecutor knowingly allowed false testimony, disparaged grandmother, and made improper closings | State: inconsistencies were witness memory issues; impeachment and credibility argument appropriate; closing not preserved | Court: no due-process violation shown; disparaging comment not prejudicial in context; closing argument claim waived |
| Cumulative error | Johnson: multiple harmless errors cumulatively denied a fair sentencing | State: errors were not established or were harmless | Court: no multiple prejudicial errors shown; cumulative-error claim rejected |
| Independent sentence review under R.C. 2929.05(A) | Johnson: expanded mitigation (abusive, substance‑affected upbringing, low IQ, youth, remorse, prison conduct) outweighs aggravators | State: aggravators (brutal premeditated beating during burglary/robbery) outweigh mitigation | Held: Court independently weighed evidence and concluded aggravating circumstances did not outweigh mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt; vacated death sentence and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race‑based peremptory challenges)
- Miller‑El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (comparative juror treatment can show pretext in Batson analysis)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (prosecutorial‑misconduct due‑process standard focuses on trial fairness)
- State v. DePew, 38 Ohio St.3d 275 (penalty‑phase admissibility of evidence from guilt phase)
- State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252 (standard for admitting gruesome photographs)
- State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (mitigation weight can, cumulatively, render death inappropriate)