People v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 19 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | C086308 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES EDWARD JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
During a domestic dispute, defendant James Edward Johnson hit the mother of his daughter in the face, breaking her jaw. At trial, an expert on domestic violence testified that his mentor on the subject of domestic violence estimated about two percent of alleged victims lie to the police when it comes to domestic violence reports. After the trial, a juror came forward to complain she had been bullied by other jurors; this juror and other jurors also recounted how the bailiff gave them advice regarding deliberations.
Defendant was convicted of corporal injury on a dating partner (Pen Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))[1] and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)) with enhancements for personally inflicting great bodily injury (§§ 12022.7, subd. (e), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). After the jury sustained strike and prior prison term allegations (§§ 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b)), the trial court imposed an 11-year state prison term.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying a new trial motion based on juror and bailiff misconduct counsel was ineffective in litigating the new trial motion the matter should be remanded for a hearing on his ability to pay certain fines and fees pursuant to People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157(Dueñas), and the court erred in imposing the same prison prior twice. In a supplemental brief, he contends the expert testimony on the probability of false complaints deprived him of a fair trial, counsel's failure to object to this testimony was ineffective assistance, and the prison prior should be stricken pursuant to Senate Bill No. 136 (Senate Bill 136).
The materials submitted in support of the new trial motion do not support a finding of juror misconduct; while the bailiff committed misconduct, the prosecution overcame the presumption of prejudice. Counsel's actions regarding the new trial motion did not constitute ineffective assistance. While imposing the prison prior twice was erroneous, the elimination of the prison prior pursuant to Senate Bill 136 moots any claim. Although the expert testimony was improperly allowed, the error is harmless. Disagreeing with Dueñas, we shall remand with directions to strike the prison prior and affirm in all other respects.
Prosecution Case
Defendant and L.M. were in a relationship for about two years and had a daughter, J.M., in 2016.
On December 23, 2016, defendant spent the day at L.M.'s apartment with L.M., J.M., and L.M.'s three-year-old son D.M. He left to buy diapers and later returned. Upon his return, defendant and L.M. began arguing after he started calling her names.
L.M. texted her roommate Tatiana Rodrigues that defendant was acting crazily and had to leave; she asked Rodriguez to come home early from a Christmas party. Rodrigues, who consumed alcohol at the party and was feeling “buzzed, ” returned home to find defendant, L.M., and J.M. in the living room. Defendant accused L.M. of cheating on him, which she denied.[2] Rodrigues and L.M. repeatedly told defendant to leave the apartment, but he refused and got more agitated.
Rodrigues went to the kitchen and told defendant she would call someone to make him leave the apartment. She grabbed a knife; defendant walked toward Rodrigues as she held the knife in her hand. Pointing the knife at him, Rodrigues told defendant he needed to leave. According to Rodrigues, she put the knife down and never left the kitchen with it because she knew from experience that using a knife was not the right way to scare a person or get the person to stop what he or she is doing. Rodrigues never told the police about the knife because she had a prior felony conviction for domestic violence and was afraid to tell them.
L.M., who was holding J.M., gave her daughter to Rodrigues because she was afraid defendant was going to hit Rodrigues. Defendant backed Rodrigues against the wall and tried to take the baby from her, but she held on. She did not give the baby to defendant because he was not “in the right state of mind.”
According to Rodrigues, defendant “kept flexing, ” balling his fist, and threatening to do something as he walked up. Afraid defendant would hurt her baby, L.M.-who was on the phone with her sister-pulled defendant on his clothes to get him away from Rodrigues. Defendant turned and punched L.M. in the jaw, causing her to fall down. Immediately thereafter, defendant said “Fuck” a few times, grabbed his belongings, and left.
Rodrigues called 911; officers arrived shortly after and took statements from L.M. and Rodrigues. Rodrigues cooperated, while L.M. was crying uncontrollably when the officers arrived. An officer saw swelling on the right side of L.M.'s lower lip and a small cut. L.M. declined the officer's offer for medical treatment.
L.M. sought medical treatment a week later, as the swelling remained and her lip turned purple. Her jaw was fractured in multiple places. It required surgery, rebreaking her jaw, and putting a plate in her chin. L.M.'s jaw was wired shut for six weeks following her surgery.
L.M., who was 19 at the time of the trial, still loved defendant.
Once, when she was pregnant with defendant's daughter, defendant hit L.M. so hard in the face that she urinated on herself.
On August 8, 2016, L.M. called the police after defendant pushed her, causing her head to hit a wall. Defendant left the apartment before the police arrived.
L.M. called the police on December 10, 2016, after defendant acted crazily, kicked a door open, and struck her over 20 times during the day. Defendant left before the police arrived. L.M. declined medical treatment.
David Cropp, a retired Sacramento Police detective who worked for a domestic violence crisis center, testified as an expert on domestic violence.
It is common for domestic violence victims to stay in relationships with their abusers. Victims often feel guilt following the arrest of the abuser; they can also fear leaving the relationship. In his experience, over 60 percent of domestic violence victims return to their abusers.
Domestic violence victims often distrust law enforcement, making them reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement or the criminal justice system. This happens because abusers often return home after the arrest with worsening abuse. They are also suspicious of a criminal justice system which often pits the victim against an intimate partner.
There are instances where a victim exaggerates a report of domestic violence, for example out of anger against the partner. It is difficult to find statistics on the percentage of victims who make false reports, although there is no indication that domestic violence victims lie to police at a higher rate than other crime victims. Cropp's mentor on domestic violence estimated that about two percent of victims lie to police when making a domestic violence report.
Testifying on his own behalf, defendant recalled first meeting L.M. on March 20, 2015. He was six feet tall and weighed between 180 and 190 pounds, while L.M. was five feet six inches tall and weighed 150 pounds.
He admitted punching L.M. in self-defense after she attacked him from behind while he was saying goodbye to their daughter who was being held by Rodrigues. Although Rodrigues had threatened to stab him while demanding he leave the apartment, defendant remained calm and never raised his voice. Rodrigues was holding an eight-inch kitchen knife in one hand and the baby in the other when defendant struck L.M. He never committed any of the alleged acts of prior misconduct against L.M.
According to defendant, he spent the whole day with L.M. on December 23. They had sex in the morning and engaged in good conversations during the day. After Rodrigues left the apartment to go to a Christmas party, L.M. told defendant she did not want Rodrigues to live with her and wanted defendant to move in; defendant said he would move in with her. L.M. got upset with defendant that evening when he told her that he got another woman pregnant, with the baby due later that month. L.M. initially did not believe him; she started crying and said defendant never gave their daughter a chance, he never loved L.M., and he had cheated on her.
Rodrigues, who had obviously been drinking, returned to the apartment about 30 minutes before defendant left. Rodrigues and defendant started arguing, with Rodrigues eventually telling defendant to get out. After defendant told Rodrigues it was L.M.'s place and he was not going to leave, Rodrigues called someone to force him to leave. Defendant decided to leave after L.M. eventually told him to go. He asked for J.M. so he could kiss his daughter before leaving, but L.M. refused.
Rodrigues then came out of the kitchen with an eight-inch knife and told defendant to leave. Rodrigues eventually took J.M. from L.M. and walked into the living room with a knife in her hand. Defendant, concerned for J.M.'s safety, told Rodrigues to give him his daughter.
L.M. got on Rodrigues's phone. Defendant followed Rodrigues into the living room and told her to give him J.M. Defendant was then hit from behind. He did not remember his hair being pulled or how many times he was hit; he was not injured. Defendant reacted by turning around and striking L.M. in the face in self-defense. Before he was struck, defendant had been facing Rodrigues, who had the knife in her hand.
Hitting L.M. in the face was a self-defense accident. He had punched her hard by...
To continue reading
Request your trial