People v. Johnson
Decision Date | 23 June 2004 |
Docket Number | No. F042905.,F042905. |
Citation | 119 Cal.App.4th 976,14 Cal.Rptr.3d 780 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Glen Maurice JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Joan Isserlis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Stan Cross and Susan Rankin Bunting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found Glen Maurice Johnson guilty of second degree murder, conspiracy to murder, and accessory to murder, found all 13 allegations of overt acts true, and found all three allegations of arming of a principal with a firearm true. (Pen.Code, §§ 32, 182, subd. (a)(1), 187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (a)(1).) On appeal, he argues, inter alia, that insufficiency of the evidence and instructional error on reasonable doubt require reversal. We will reject the insufficiency of the evidence argument, but instructional error on reasonable doubt will require that we reverse the judgment and order a new trial.
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence**
2. Instructions on Reasonable Doubt
(In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 363, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368.) Due process "protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he [or she] is charged." (Id. at p. 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068.)
The record shows that during jury selection the court amplified at length on the standard reasonable doubt instruction (CALJIC No. 2.90):
The court authorized the prospective jurors to find Johnson guilty even if they were to have "some doubt" about his guilt and characterized a juror who renders a guilty verdict with "no doubt" about his guilt as "brain dead":
[¶] ...
The court gave the prospective jurors the "legal definition" of reasonable doubt:
The court equated proof beyond a reasonable doubt to everyday decision-making in a juror's life:
With another prospective juror, the court continued to equate proof beyond a reasonable doubt to everyday decision-making in a juror's life:
After one prospective juror acknowledged difficulty in passing moral judgments on others, the court gave the instruction that jurors are not to "pass a moral judgment" but are simply to make the "kind of decisions you make every day in your life":
After another prospective juror expressed an inability as a matter of conscience and religion to participate in a jury trial, the court instructed that jurors who find an accused person guilty or not guilty engage in the same decision-making process they
In argument to the jury, the prosecutor took his cue from the court's reasonable doubt instructions, characterized a juror who could return a guilty verdict without "some doubt" about Johnson's guilt as "brain dead," and equated proof beyond a reasonable doubt to everyday decision-making in a juror's life:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clough v. Evans
...edge, such that the jury was inadequately instructed in light of the prosecutor's statements. [Petitioner] relies on People v. Johnson (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 976 , and People v. Johnson (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1169 , both of which we find distinguishable. In both cases, although CALJIC No. 2......
-
Brooks v. Soto
...people use to make decisions in their everyday lives. (People v. Brannon (1873) 47 Cal. 96, 97; People v. Johnson (Glen) (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 976, 985-986; People v. Johnson (Danny) (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1171-1172.) The constitutional question in such a case "is whether there is a ......
-
People v. Centeno
...case law is replete with innovative but ill-fated attempts to explain the reasonable doubt standard. (See People v. Johnson (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 976, 985–986, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 780 ; People v. Garcia (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 61, 63, 126 Cal.Rptr. 275.) We have recognized the “difficulty and peri......
-
People v. Dilbert, A111802 (Cal. App. 4/14/2008)
...cases: Nguyen, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th 28, People v. Johnson (Danny) (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1169 (Johnson (Danny)), and People v. Johnson (Glen) (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 976 (Johnson (Glen).) In Nguyen, the prosecutor made the following statements to the jury during summation: " `The standard i......
-
Coordinating the attack in trial
...argument borders on trivialization discussed above with respect to the “take responsibility” argu-ment. [See People v. Johnson (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 976, 983 (“In argument to the jury, the prosecutor took his cue from the court’s reasonable doubt instructions, characterized a juror who cou......
-
Table of cases
...v. Johnson (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1050, §§10:35.2, 10:42 People v. Johnson (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 292, §5:100 People v. Johnson (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 976, §§9:91.14, 9:93 People v. Johnson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 717, §7:86.4 People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676, §12:14.2 People v. Johnson (2......