Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 11 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | S20A1289 |
| Citation | 853 S.E.2d 635,310 Ga. 685 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Jessica Ruth Towne, Clark & Towne, P.C., 1755 North Brown Road, Suite 200, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30043, Attorneys for the Appellant.
Penny Alane Penn, District Attorney, Forsyth County District Attorney's Office, 101 E. Courthouse Square, Ste 2075, Cumming, Georgia 30040, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Eric Christopher Peters, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Alexander Oldham, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Attorneys for the Appellee.
Sharod Johnson was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with a string of armed robberies that culminated in the shooting death of David Lee Casto.1 On appeal, Johnson contends that the trial court erred when it failed to strike the testimony of a State witness and that Johnson was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel with regard to that witness. Johnson also contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motions to suppress evidence related to searches of his cell phone, home, and car. Seeing no reversible error, we affirm.
1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence presented at trial showed that Johnson and his co-indictees—Tyrice Adside, Travarius Jackson, Nakitta Holmes, and Darren Slayton—were friends or acquaintances and spent time together in the summer of 2010. In late August and early September 2010, Johnson and the others engaged in three separate armed robberies, as detailed below.
In August 2010, Johnson, Adside, and Slayton decided to rob a Waffle House in Forsyth County. To carry out the robbery, the men used Johnson's shotgun (which he kept in the trunk of his car) and a .40 caliber Glock handgun that they borrowed from another acquaintance, Ardansac McMillan. Around 1:00 a.m. on August 25, the trio drove to the Waffle House in Johnson's car and parked at the back of the building. Johnson and Adside then got out, jumped over a fence, and ran inside the Waffle House dressed in all-black clothing and with their faces covered with t-shirts. Adside carried the shotgun and Johnson carried the handgun, though both weapons were unloaded at the time. Inside the restaurant, the men encountered a server, Alicia Richard, and the cook, Kenneth Barrett. Adside threatened Richard with the shotgun and had her give him money from the cash register. Meanwhile, Johnson pointed a gun at Barrett and demanded that he open the safe. When Barrett said he was unable to do so, Johnson threatened to kill him. Adside and Johnson then took the money from the cash register and left.
After robbing the Waffle House, Johnson and his accomplices decided to rob a Chevron gas station on Buford Highway, where Adside had been a customer and "knew the lady inside." This time, five men participated in the robbery: Johnson, Adside, Jackson, Holmes, and Slayton. Early in the morning of August 26, the group drove to the gas station in Johnson's car and parked behind the building. Adside stayed in the car while Johnson and the others went inside the gas station, where Suzette McCrary was working the night shift as a cashier. Holmes carried Johnson's shotgun and Jackson carried McMillan's handgun. The four men confronted McCrary, forced her at gunpoint to give them cash from the registers, and stole some cigarettes. After the robbery, on the way home, Slayton and Jackson referred to Holmes as a "beast" because he was "good at what he does," and Johnson and the others laughed.
After the Chevron robbery, Johnson suggested to Adside and the others that they rob the Ingles grocery store where Johnson worked as a cashier; Johnson said the robbery would net "a lot of money"—over $20,000—and would be easy to accomplish. Johnson informed the group that a security guard would be present, so the men devised a plan to "tie him up and put him in the freezer," and Holmes said that "if the guard tried to buck or anything, he was going to shoot him." The night before the robbery, Johnson, along with Adside and Jackson, drove by Ingles to "case the place." Afterward, the trio drove to a nearby Waffle House, where they ordered a drink.
On the evening of September 5, after Johnson began his shift at Ingles, Adside, Jackson, and Holmes drove to Ingles in Johnson's car, parked in the back of the store near the loading dock, and texted Johnson to alert him of their arrival. Johnson opened the back door, let the others inside, and told them to wait inside the meat freezer, though he moved the men to the milk cooler when Adside complained that the freezer was too cold. As they had planned, Holmes carried the shotgun and Jackson carried the handgun.
Around 11:00 p.m., only three employees remained at the store: Johnson, Casto (the security guard), and Rosa Marie Turpin (the assistant manager). When all three employees went to the back of the store to check the security door, Adside and his group came out of the cooler with their faces covered, pointed their guns at the employees, and told them to get down. The men then placed tape on Casto's eyes and wrists and removed his gun and bulletproof vest. When Holmes took the guard's gun, Adside took the shotgun Holmes had been carrying. Adside then placed Casto in the freezer and closed the door, while Holmes and Jackson went to the front of the store and forced Turpin at gunpoint to give them cash from the safe and the self-check-out counters. As the money was being retrieved, Holmes went to the back of the store and shot Casto, who was still tied up in the freezer.
After collecting the money and some cigarettes, Adside and his group took Johnson and Turpin to the back of the store and placed tape on Turpin's eyes and wrists, while Johnson did the same to himself. The trio then moved Turpin and Johnson into the freezer where Casto was lying, though Turpin did not know at the time that Casto had been shot or that he was in the freezer with them. Adside, Holmes, and Jackson left the store and drove to McMillan's house in Buford, where they split the proceeds of the robbery. Meanwhile, Johnson was able to free himself relatively quickly, and Turpin—not realizing at the time that he was involved in the robbery—asked him to call the police. Johnson did not want to use his own phone, however, and suggested that Turpin use hers. When the police arrived on the scene, they found Casto lying in the back of the freezer and determined that he was deceased. An autopsy revealed that Casto died from a close-range gunshot wound to the head.2
Johnson does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. Nevertheless, consistent with this Court's general practice in murder cases, we have reviewed the record and conclude that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318-319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.E.2d 560 (1979).3
2. Johnson contends that the trial court erred when it failed to strike the testimony of Darren Slayton after he invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify further at trial. Slayton had pleaded guilty to two charges of armed robbery for his involvement in the Waffle House and Chevron robberies, and he was called by the State as a witness at Johnson's trial. The prosecutor began the direct examination by eliciting background information from Slayton. Among other things, Slayton testified that he had introduced Adside to Johnson, that Slayton had talked to Johnson "at community service," and that he, Johnson, Jackson, and McMillan regularly spent time at McMillan's home, where they smoked marijuana and consumed "X pills." Slayton also testified that he had seen a shotgun in the trunk of Johnson's car.
The prosecutor then started questioning Slayton about the events of August 25, 2010; Slayton testified that, on that day, Johnson called him and asked what he was doing, after which they went to meet with McMillan and Jackson. Before providing any more details, however, Slayton said, After confirming that Slayton had invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, Johnson's lawyer moved to strike Slayton's "entire testimony." The State opposed the motion, stating that Johnson could "cross-examine [Slayton] on the stuff that he's testified about," but that Johnson "just apparently can't go any further, unless [Slayton] chooses to testify further." The trial court told Johnson's lawyer: Johnson's lawyer responded, "Then I don't believe I have any questions." At that point, Slayton left the stand, and the State called its next witness.
On appeal, Johnson argues that the trial court's failure to strike Slayton's testimony violated his right to confrontation. We disagree.4 "The main and essential purpose of the right of confrontation is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross-examination." State v. Vogleson , 275 Ga. 637, 638, 571 S.E.2d 752 (2002) (quoting Davis v. Alaska , 415 U.S. 308, 315,94 S.Ct 1105, 39 L.E.2d 347 (1974) ) (punctuation omitted). See also OCGA § 24-6-611 (b) (). Here, the trial court expressly gave Johnson the opportunity to cross-examine Slayton about the events to which Slayton testified,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tyson v. State
...a meritless course of action. See Carter v. State , 310 Ga. 559, 564 (2) (a), 852 S.E.2d 542 (2020) ; see also Johnson v. State , 310 Ga. 685, 691-692 (3), 853 S.E.2d 635 (2021) (counsel not ineffective in failing to make meritless motion or objection).7. In two enumerations of error, Tyson......
-
Willis v. State
...him, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Johnson v. State , 310 Ga. 685, 694 (4) (b), 853 S.E.2d 635 (2021) (citation and punctuation omitted). The magistrate's decision to issue the warrant is entitled to "substantial def......
-
Alvarez-Maldonado v. State
...to make a strong showing that the damaging evidence would have been suppressed had counsel made the motion).35 Johnson v. State , 310 Ga. 685, 694 (4) (b), 853 S.E.2d 635 (2021) (punctuation omitted).36 Id. (punctuation omitted).37 Id. (punctuation omitted).38 Id.39 See Rickman v. State , 3......
-
Patterson v. State
...presented at trial or at the motion-for-new-trial hearing that Beverly improperly cleaned the catheter. See Johnson v. State , 310 Ga. 685, 692 (3), 853 S.E.2d 635 (2021) (Appellant failed to show deficient performance under Strickland where he "does not explain, and the record does not sho......