Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 23 February 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 32100.,32100. |
| Citation | 17 P.3d 1008,117 Nev. 153 |
| Parties | Richard Christopher JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
David M. Schieck, Las Vegas, for Appellant.
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, Carson City; Stewart L. Bell, District Attorney, and James Tufteland and William T. Koot, Chief Deputy District Attorneys, Clark County, for Respondent.
Before MAUPIN, C.J., SHEARING and BECKER, JJ.
CORRECTED OPINION1
Richard Christopher Johnson appeals his conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of second-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon. Johnson contends that: (1) his court-appointed trial counsel violated his Sixth Amendment2 rights; (2) the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by refusing to allow him to represent himself; and (3) the district court erred in concluding that he was not entitled to a new trial based on the State's alleged failure to preserve videotape evidence.
In accord with a majority of jurisdictions that have addressed similar issues, we conclude that Johnson's counsel below improperly interposed an insanity defense against Johnson's wishes. Therefore, we reverse Johnson's conviction and remand this matter for further proceedings.
On April 8, 1995, Johnson shot and killed George Hightower outside Caesar's Palace Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. Several eyewitnesses, including a Los Angeles police officer, identified Johnson as the shooter. One witness took numerous still photographs and eight surveillance cameras recorded the incident on videotape.
Immediately after the incident, an officer of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ("LVMPD") asked Caesar's security investigator Robert Lambright to turn over the surveillance tapes. Lambright later testified that he copied the relevant portions of an eight-plex tape onto a single tape, that the original eight-plex tape was misplaced, but that all the taped portions of the murder contained in the eight-plex tape were transferred to a standard VCR tape later presented at trial.
Following its initial investigation, the State charged Johnson with murder with the use of a deadly weapon and counsel was appointed to represent him. Counsel's investigation revealed that Johnson had a history of bizarre behavior. For example, Johnson had previously contacted an LVMPD officer complaining that there was a conspiracy in the community and that members of an Oakland "cult type situation" were after him. Johnson told the officer that he had sent letters to various public and police agencies requesting that they investigate the conspiracy. Johnson had also sent letters to President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and members of Congress warning them of a dangerous Oakland gang. He also claimed that Hightower may have been involved in the conspiracy and had killed people in Oakland.
Due to this unusual behavior, Johnson's first public defender arranged a psychiatric examination. One of the initial examining experts, Dr. Rockenbeck, diagnosed Johnson as having symptoms of a serious delusional disorder that interfered with his ability to function socially, as well as in the trial process. Although Dr. Rockenbeck's assessment indicated that Johnson understood the charges against him and trial procedure, his preliminary diagnosis raised questions about whether Johnson was able to accept the assistance of any attorney who did not embrace Johnson's delusional beliefs. Accordingly, on October 6, 1995, the district court remanded Johnson to the state mental health facility at Lakes Crossing for a thorough sanity commission evaluation of his competence to stand trial.3
At Lakes Crossing, three psychiatrists, Dr. Howle, Dr. Tanenbaum, and Dr. Rich, all found Johnson to be competent to stand trial and to assist in his defense. Based on these findings, Johnson's new court-appointed public defender in the proceedings below withdrew his request for a full sanity commission competency hearing and specifically indicated on the record that he was satisfied "beyond a reasonable doubt that [Johnson] was competent" to proceed to trial. Thereafter, Johnson was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The district court also permitted his counsel to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity on Johnson's behalf.
In response to his counsel's entry of the insanity plea, Johnson renewed an earlier proper person motion to remove his counsel and to represent himself. On September 18, 1996, the district court conducted an extensive Faretta4 canvas. The court fully explained, and Johnson acknowledged that he understood, the dangers of self-representation, as well as the elements of the crime with which he was charged. The court's canvas further established that Johnson understood that he was charged with first-degree murder, meaning "premeditated, deliberate murder with malice," that a conviction of first-degree murder might result in life imprisonment, and that his possible defenses included not guilty by reason of insanity and self-defense.
The transcript of the Faretta canvas also reflects, however, that Johnson's primary motivation for wanting to represent himself was his counsel's insistence on presenting an insanity defense. For example, Johnson expressed his dissatisfaction with counsel based on their differences regarding the insanity issue:
I'd like to have a defensive counsel, not—no one from the public defender's office. Based on the incompetency issue, based on our differences, our conflict of interests. I would like to have someone other than the public defender's office.
With respect to his relationship with counsel, Johnson further stated: "I think we have a legal conflict based on the not guilty by reason of insanity issue your honor."
Moreover, due to this conflict, defense counsel explained that if the court permitted Johnson to represent himself, counsel felt he could not ethically act as standby counsel. Specifically, counsel noted that Johnson adamantly denied he was insane, and if Johnson were to act as his own counsel, counsel was certain that Johnson would withdraw the insanity defense. Under those circumstances, counsel argued, he could not ethically serve as "backup" counsel "because I know that a not guilty by reason of insanity defense has to be put forth, and he [Johnson] won't let me do it."5
At the conclusion of this hearing, the district court ruled that Johnson had "passed the test of the Faretta canvas" and could represent himself. Despite counsel's objections, the court appointed him to act as standby counsel. Nonetheless, the court expressed willingness to further consider counsel's suggestion of a "creative" solution to his perceived "ethical" dilemma. Specifically, counsel suggested that if the court appointed him as Johnson's co-counsel, he could assert an insanity defense while Johnson continued to act on his own behalf in presenting other matters, such as his claim of self-defense. Counsel argued that the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity was "completely consistent" with Johnson's theory of self-defense. On October 2, 1996, the district court revisited the issue, modified its earlier decision by adopting counsel's "co-counsel" solution, and ordered counsel to serve as Johnson's co-counsel for the purpose of presenting an insanity defense. After the district court announced this decision, Johnson placed his objections to the ruling on the record:
At another pretrial hearing on October 11, 1996, concerns resurfaced respecting Johnson's delusional belief system, his competence to proceed to trial, and his competence to represent himself as co-counsel. Specifically, the prosecutor voiced his increasing concern that Johnson might be "laboring under some sort of delusion, either intentionally or unintentionally," and requested the court to appoint some professionals to examine Johnson:
Subsequently, on October 25, 1996, the district court ordered Johnson returned to the Lakes Crossing facility for another sanity commission evaluation.
On February 19, 1997, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the competency issue. Defense counsel and the prosecutor extensively questioned Dr. Howle, Dr. Rich, and Dr. Tanenbaum regarding their further findings. Again, the doctors all agreed that Johnson understood the proceedings against him and that he was mentally competent to stand trial. Although Dr. Howle and Dr. Tanenbaum diagnosed Johnson as suffering from a delusional disorder, they concluded that his condition did not necessarily render him incompetent to stand trial. Dr. Howle testified, however, that Johnson's competency was more "fluid than static," and that "he may be more competent on one day than another." Dr. Howle also conceded that a trial was a stressful situation and that Johnson's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Breton v. Comm'r of Corr.
...avenues and advise the client of those offering potential merit" [internal quotation marks omitted] ); Johnson v. State , 117 Nev. 153, 162 and n.14, 17 P.3d 1008 (2001) ("[t]he majority of [s]tates honor a competent defendant's choice to forgo a defense strategy that asserts, in any way, t......
-
McLaren v. State
...for the trial court to allow the defense attorney to proceed against the defendant's express objections. See, e.g., Johnson v. State , 117 Nev. 153, 17 P.3d 1008, 1015 (2001) ("The forced imposition of the insanity defense over the express objections of the defendant is structural error req......
-
Rhyne v. State
...4. Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 8, 86 S.Ct. 1245, 16 L.Ed.2d 314 (1966) (Harlan, J., concurring). 5. Johnson v. State, 117 Nev. ___, ___, 17 P.3d 1008, 1014-15 (2001). 6. Id. at ___, 17 P.3d at 1015. 7. People v. Alcala, 4 Cal.4th 742, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 842 P.2d 1192, 1232 (1992). 8. I......
-
People v. Bergerud
...whether to raise an insanity defense. E.g., United States v. Marble, 940 F.2d 1543, 1547-48 (D.C.Cir.1991); Johnson v. State, 117 Nev. 153, 17 P.3d 1008, 1013-15 (2001); State v. Bean, 171 Vt. 290, 762 A.2d 1259, 1265-68 (2000); Commonwealth v. Federici, 427 Mass. 740, 696 N.E.2d 111, 114-1......