Johnson v. State

• Decision Date: 29 October 2015
• Docket Number: No. CR–15–174,CR–15–174
• Citation: 472 S.W.3d 486
• Parties: James Johnson III, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

472 S.W.3d 486

James Johnson III, Appellant
v.
State of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR–15–174

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered October 29, 2015

James Law Firm, by: Lee D. Short, Little Rock, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Ashley Driver Younger, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice

On August 6, 2014, a Pulaski County Circuit Court jury convicted appellant, James Johnson III, of capital murder and sentenced Johnson to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.¹ This timely appeal followed. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1–2(a)(2) (2015).

Johnson's appeal arises from the death of Charles Gaskins during the course of an aggravated robbery in Little Rock on July 30, 2012. Because Johnson does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, only a brief statement of the facts is necessary. The record demonstrates that around midnight on July 30, 2012, Nikelle Girndt and her fiancé, Gaskins, were sitting on the front porch of their trailer in southwest Little Rock off Baseline Road when two masked gunmen jumped onto the porch. Girndt testified that she thought it was a prank until one of the masked men said "[T]his is a robbery." Girndt further testified that one of the men raised the gun to her chest; Gaskins intervened and attacked one of the men to free Girndt from the gun's path as Gaskins remained outside on the porch. Girndt testified that she then ran inside the home and attempted to lock the door and struggled with one of the men as he tried to shove his way in the door. Girndt testified that she awoke Gaskins's son-in-law, Stephon Gillersen, and called 911. Finally, Girndt testified that, through the window, she saw Gaskins lying on his stomach on the porch, but Gillersen would not let her open the door until officers arrived for fear that the men remained outside.

Later that same day, Johnson and Donte Davis were developed as suspects in the homicide, stopped pursuant to a traffic stop, and arrested and charged with capital murder. Upon his arrest, Johnson had a cell phone on his person that was seized. Pursuant to a search warrant, over his objection, the phone contents were searched, and incriminating evidence was found on the phone. Specifically, the search revealed the following text message on Johnson's phone: "So ima go my own route if they ketch me on this here charge im gone fa life." The search also revealed that Johnson's phone had accessed a news article regarding the homicide entitled "Witness says fiancé fought masked man on porch, died." Johnson was tried and convicted as discussed above, and this appeal followed.

Johnson raises one point on appeal: the circuit court erred in denying Johnson's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cell phone records.

472 S.W.3d 488

I. Points on Appeal

For his sole point on appeal, Johnson contends that the circuit court erred in denying Johnson's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cell phone. Johnson contends that the search-warrant affidavit was deficient and that the good faith exception is inapplicable because the affidavit was "bare bones."

"In reviewing a circuit court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we conduct a de novo review based on the totality of the circumstances, reviewing findings of historical facts for clear error and determining whether those facts give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause, giving due weight to inferences drawn by the circuit court and proper deference to the circuit court's findings. E.g., Menne v. State, 2012 Ark. 37, 386 S.W.3d 451. A finding is clearly erroneous, even if there is evidence to support it, when the appellate court, after review of the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. E.g., Lee v. State, 2009 Ark. 255, 308 S.W.3d 596. We defer to the superiority of the circuit court to evaluate the credibility of witnesses who testify at a suppression hearing. E.g., Cockrell v. State, 2010 Ark. 258, 370 S.W.3d 197. We reverse only if the circuit court's ruling is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Ritter v. State, 2011 Ark. 427, 385 S.W.3d 740." Jackson v. State, 2013 Ark. 201, 5–6, 427 S.W.3d 607, 611–12.

Turning to Johnson's argument on appeal, he asserts that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress the search warrant that resulted in the search of the contents of his cell phone. Prior to trial, Johnson filed a motion to suppress...