Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 22 January 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. S00A1428.,S00A1428. |
| Citation | Johnson v. State, 541 S.E.2d 357, 273 Ga. 345 (Ga. 2001) |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Quillian, Loncon & Edwards, Michael L. Edwards, Diane, M. McLeod, Savannah, for appellant.
Spencer Lawton, Jr., District Attorney, Gregory M. McConnell, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tammie J. Philbrick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Isadore Johnson, Jr., was convicted of, and sentenced for, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, in connection with the shooting death of Anthony Curry. This appeal followed the denial of Johnson's motion for a new trial.1 We affirm. Viewing the evidence in a light to uphold the verdict, we find the following: Johnson's ten-year-old son was playing in his front yard when Anthony Curry, who was 15 years old, and two other teenagers walked by. One of the youths hasseled Johnson's son, saying he was going to beat him up, and by throwing a bottle at him. Johnson's son went inside and told Johnson that some kids were bothering him.
Johnson walked to his front porch and told the three youths, who were talking and standing on the street corner, to leave the area. One of the three replied that they were not leaving. Johnson went back inside, put on a shirt and shoes, went outside, and walked to his car.
Johnson had been convicted previously of a felony. Nevertheless, he retrieved a gun from his car and walked toward the youths with the gun in his hand. Johnson slapped Curry on the back of the head and shot Curry in the chest. The bullet pierced Curry's heart and lungs and killed him.
Johnson fled the scene. He turned himself in two days later; but the gun was never found.
At trial, Johnson testified that he never saw any of the youths with a weapon; but he decided to arm himself to talk with the youths. He also testified that he started talking to the youths; that Curry jumped him; and that the gun went off when Curry hit his hand.
1. The evidence was sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact to find Johnson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 2. The trial court did not err in refusing to sever the charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon from the other charges. Inasmuch as it was the predicate felony of one of the felony murder counts, the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon charge was connected to the other charges. Roundtree v. State, 270 Ga. 504, 505(3), 511 S.E.2d 190 (1999).
3. In his opening statement, the prosecutor told the jury that Johnson had been convicted previously of aggravated assault. Johnson moved for a mistrial, asserting he was prejudiced by the prosecutor's remark. The trial court denied the motion and Johnson assigns error to that ruling.
Inasmuch as Johnson was charged with felony murder predicated upon the felony of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the jury was bound to have learned of Johnson's prior conviction sooner or later. See Division 2, supra. Thus, it cannot be said that the prosecutor's remark prejudiced Johnson.
4. Voluntary manslaughter occurs when one kills "solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person." OCGA § 16-5-2(a). Involuntary manslaughter requires the commission of an unlawful act other than a felony, OCGA § 16-5-3(a), or the commission of a lawful act in an unlawful manner. OCGA § 16-5-3(b). The evidence in this case does not demonstrate that Johnson killed Curry out of a "sudden, violent and irresistible passion" such as would have arisen in a reasonable person under similar circumstances. Worthem v. State, 270 Ga. 469, 471, 509 S.E.2d 922 (1999). Nor does it show that Curry died as a result of an unlawful act other than a felony, Jenkins v. State, 270 Ga. 607, 608(2)(d), 512 S.E.2d 269 (1999), or of a lawful act committed in an unlawful manner. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the law of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
5. Johnson contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior act—in which he shot and wounded Tracy Jacobs on June 30, 1989—because it was based upon inadmissible hearsay. We disagree. The evidence was admitted properly under the necessity exception to the hearsay rule. To satisfy the necessity exception to the hearsay rule, the proponent of the evidence must meet two requirements: (1) necessity, i.e., the declarant is unavailable to testify and his statement is relevant to a material fact and more probative than other evidence that may be offered; and (2) trustworthiness, i.e., the declarant's statement must have particularized guarantees of reliability. Clark v. State, 271 Ga. 6, 9(5), 515 S.E.2d 155 (1999). Johnson concedes that the first requirement—necessity—was met because Jacobs was dead when this case was tried,2 and his statements concerning the prior act were relevant to a material fact and more probative than other evidence that might have been procured to prove that fact. See Morrow v. State, 272 Ga. 691, 700(9), 532 S.E.2d 78 (2000). However, Johnson asserts that particularized guarantees of trustworthiness were missing from Jacobs' statements. And, in this connection, he points out Jacobs did not press charges against him.
The State proved that Johnson shot Jacobs by introducing the testimony of two police officers who had interviewed Jacobs, as well as medical records reflecting a statement which Jacobs made to a physician when he was brought to the hospital. Officer Herron testified that he arrived at the scene of the shooting and found Jacobs with a gunshot wound in the arm; that he spoke with Jacobs at that time and that Jacobs told him that Johnson...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Yancey v. State
...429 S.E.2d 655 (1993) (admitting murder victim's statements about her husband's prior kidnapping of her); see also Johnson v. State, 273 Ga. 345, 347, 541 S.E.2d 357 (2001) (admitting statements to police by victim of defendant's prior 17. See Holmes v. State, 271 Ga. 138, 140, 516 S.E.2d 6......
-
Biggs v. State
...483 (1991). Focusing on the similarities, not the differences, between the charged crimes and the prior offense, see Johnson v. State, 273 Ga. 345(6), 541 S.E.2d 357 (2001), the evidence showed that in both crimes Biggs knocked on the victim's door and forced his way into the apartment; bot......
-
Turner v. State
... ... Mobley v. State, 271 Ga. 577, 523 S.E.2d 9 (1999). The trial court's determination with respect to effective assistance of counsel will be affirmed unless the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous. Johnson v. State, 266 Ga. 380, 383, 467 S.E.2d 542 (1996) ... (a) Included within the constitutional right to counsel is the right to representation that is free from conflicts of interest. Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 271, 101 S.Ct. 1097, 67 L.Ed.2d 220 (1981); Sallie v. State, 269 Ga ... ...
-
Brite v. State, No. S05A0031.
...Focusing on the similarities, not the differences, between the charged crimes and the prior independent offense, see Johnson v. State, 273 Ga. 345(6), 541 S.E.2d 357 (2001), the State's evidence showed that both crimes were revenge or "grudge" killings; both victims were shot in the head at......
-
Evidence - Marc T. Treadwell
...State, 273 Ga. 119, 538 S.E.2d 447 (2000). 115. . See Alexander v. State, 273 Ga. 311, 540 S.E.2d 196 (2001). 116. . See Johnson v. State, 273 Ga. 345, 541 S.E.2d 357 (2001). 117. . Slakman, 272 Ga. at 668, 533 S.E.2d at 389. 118. . Id. 119. . 273 Ga. 40, 537 S.E.2d 340 (2000). 120. . Id. a......