Johnson v. StateJohnson v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Imber
Thе appellant, Randy Turrell Johnson, was convicted of capital murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery and sentenced to life in prison. Mr. Johnson argues three points on appeal: 1) that the trial court erred by considering facts not introduced at the supрression hearing when it denied his motion to suppress the videotaped confession; 2) that the trial court erred in denying his request to redact certain portions of his confession that referenced prior convictions in violation of
On December 21, 1996, Mr. Marvin Meux approached Mr. Johnson about planning a robbery. The two planned to call the victim, who was an aсquaintance of Mr. Meux, and lure him over to Mr. Meux’s home where Mr. Johnson would rob him at gunpoint. In preparation for the robbery, Mr. Meux and Mr. Johnson went to the home of David Carter where Mr. Meux obtained a 9mm Lama handgun. Mr. Meux then called the victim, Mr. McKinley Arnold, from a pay phone and asked him to come to Mr. Meux’s home. When Mr. Arnold arrived in a white Jeep Cherokee, Mr. Meux got in on the passenger side as Mr. Johnson approached the vehicle. Wearing a black ski mask and carrying the gun obtained by Mr. Meux, Mr. Johnson attempted to rob Mr. Arnold. However, Mr. Arnold accelerated his vehicle dragging Mr. Johnson down the street. Mr. Johnson then fired the gun. Mr. Arnold was shot and later died from his wounds.
The homicide investigation eventually led the police to Mr. Johnson, who was in prison awaiting a parole revocation hearing. Mr. Johnson accompanied Detective Allen to the West Memphis Police Station and signed a form waiving his Miranda rights. Detective Allen proceeded to question Mr. Johnson about the murder, eventually obtaining a confession which was videotaped.
Mr. Johnson confessed to planning the robbery. Specifically, he admitted that the plan was for Mr. Meux to lurе Mr. Arnold to his home, and then for Mr. Johnson to rob him with the gun. According to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Meux obtained the gun from David Carter’s home and then called the victim. Mr. Johnson maintained that the shooting was an accident. When Detective Allen asked him how long he had known Mr. Meux, Mr. Johnson explained that he met him while they were both at the penitentiary in 1990. At that time, Mr. Johnson was incarcerated for stealing a car.
By information filed February 20, 1997, Mr. Johnson was charged with capital murder for the death of McKinley Arnold. The
Also during the pretrial hearing on April 28, 1998, the trial court conducted a Denno hearing with regard to Mr. Johnson’s motion to suppress his confession. Detective Allen testified that he went over each of the Miranda rights individually with Mr. Johnson. According to Detective Allen, Mr. Johnson indicated that he understood each right and then initialed and signed the form waiving his Miranda rights. Mr. Johnson, on the other hand, testified that he did not intend to waive his rights and only initialed thе form as instructed by Detective Allen. Mr. Johnson further testified that he had never been read his rights and was not familiar with them even though he had been arrested five times previously. The trial court found that Mr. Johnson knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. After denying the motion to suppress, the trial court noted that Mr. Johnson’s testimony was completely incredible in light of his assertion that he had never been read his rights despite five prior arrests. The trial court further commented that he was familiar with the county’s law enforcement practices and did not believe Mr. Johnson’s claim that he had never been read his rights over the course of those five prior arrests.
During the trial, Mr. Johnson objected to the admission of a portion of his confession. Specifically, Mr. Johnson contended that the references to meeting Mr. Meux in the penitentiary and to his conviction for car theft were not admissible under
Mr. Johnson first contends that the trial court’s ruling on the vоluntariness of his confession was based on facts not introduced in evidence at the Denno hearing, citing the court’s comments on its familiarity with law enforcement practices in the county. However, Mr. Johnson failed to object to the trial court’s ruling on this issue. We will not review issues raised for thе first time on appeal. Tucker v. State, 336 Ark. 244, 983 S.W.2d 956 (1999). Thus, Mr. Johnson’s first point has not been preserved for review on appeal.
Mr. Johnson next contends that the trial court erred in admitting his statements about meeting Mr. Meux in the penitentiary and about his prior conviction for car theft in violation of
Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b) states:
Other Crimеs, Wrongs, or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, prepаration, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
We have noted that the fist of exceptions expressed by 404(b) is not an exclusive list, but rather is exemplary of the purposes for which otherwise inadmissible evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts would be аdmissible. Thrash v. State, 291 Ark. 275, 726 S.W.2d 283 (1987); White v. State, 290 Ark. 130, 717 S.W.2d 784 (1986). Such evidence must, however, be independently relevant under
Mr. Johnson’s confession states in pertinent part:
Lt. Allen: How long have you known Marvin Meux?
Mr. Johnson: I went to the pen with him a long time ago. It was back in ’90. I stole a car. I don’t know what hé did.
In response to further questioning, Mr. Johnson acknowledged that he knew Marvin Meux by sight, and knew his name, to be Marvin Meux. The rest of the statement relates in detail how Mr. Johnson and Mr. Meux planned and executed the crime. The challenged statements establish a prior association between Mr. Johnson and Mr. Meux. This evidence of a prior relationship would make a conspiracy to commit a crime more plausible in that two persons who alreаdy know each other would be more likely to plan a crime together than would two complete strangers. Thus, the reference to meeting Mr. Meux in the penitentiary had some modicum of independent relevance to the conspiracy charge and was not introduced merеly to show that Mr. Johnson was a criminal. Moreover, Mr. Johnson would have been entitled to a limiting instruction on the purpose for which the testimony was introduced, but he failed to request such an instruction. Regalado, supra; White, supra. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the challenged portions of Mr. Johnson’s confession to be independently relevant under
However, even if independently relevant, evidence of other crimes may still be excluded if the probative value of that evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.
We must decide whether the conviction should be reversed because the trial court erred in admitting Mr. Johnson’s statement about his prior conviction and incarceration. When the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the error is slight, we can declare that the error was harmless and affirm. Barr v. State, 336 Ark. 220, 984 S.W.2d 792 (1999); Greene v. State, 317 Ark. 350, 878 S.W.2d 384 (1994). We apply this standard of review to evidentiary rulings made in the guilt phase of capital cases. See Johnson v. State, 308 Ark. 7, 823 S.W.2d 800 (1992).
A detailed review of the evidence reveals that Mr. Johnson confessed to the crime, and that the substantive details of that confession were corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses. For example, Mr. Johnson’s statement that Mr. Meux called the victim from a pay phone on Sixteenth Street was corroborated by the testimony of Detective Allen and Mr. Arnold’s sister, Ms. Annie
For his final point on appeal, Mr. Johnson asserts that Count II of the amended information, or the conspiracy charge, violates his right to a speedy trial because it was not filed or tried within twelve months оf his arrest. As an extension of this argument, Mr. Johnson asserts that the three-month continuance granted prior to the filing of the conspiracy charge and charged to him as an excludable period under
Mr. Johnson’s interpretation of the speedy-trial requirement is inconsistent with the language of the rule itself,
The time for trial shall commence running, without demand from the defendant, from the following dates:
(a) from the date the charge is filed, except that if prior to thаt time the defendant has been continuously held in custody or on bail or lawfully at liberty to answer for the same offense or an offense based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, then the time for trial shall commence running from the date of arrest.
(Emphasis added.)
The record has been reviewed pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(h) and it has been determined that there are no errors with respect to rulings on objections or motions prejudicial .to, Mr. Johnson not discussed above. Because we hold that the trial court’s error in admitting Mr. Johnson’s statement about his felony conviction and commitment to the penitentiary was harmless, we affirm.
Affirmed.