State v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 18 July 2022
• Docket Number: A21-1400
• Parties: State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Christopher Lamar Johnson, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

State of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Christopher Lamar Johnson, Appellant.

No. A21-1400

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

July 18, 2022

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Stearns County District Court File No. 73-CR-19-11007

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Ed Stockmeyer, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Janelle Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondent)

Joseph G. Vaccaro, The Law Office of Joseph G. Vaccaro, PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Alex Kyes, Kyes Law, PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Reilly, Judge.

WORKE, JUDGE

Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his second-degree murder conviction. We affirm.

1

FACTS

In the early morning hours of December 29, 2019, appellant Christopher Lamar Johnson, his brother Lawrence Johnson,^[1] and Bryant Stephenson arrived at a bar. Shortly after they arrived, a man bumped into Johnson's girlfriend. Johnson, Lawrence, and Stephenson attacked the man.

During the attack, the victim approached the fight and appeared to touch Johnson on the shoulder. Lawrence attacked the victim. The victim punched Lawrence, knocking him to the ground. Johnson then attempted to punch the victim, but the victim punched Johnson in the face before Johnson could strike him. Onlookers and bouncers broke up the fight; Johnson, Lawrence, and Stephenson left the bar. Outside the bar, Johnson yelled that "they had to serve some type of punishment" and that he was going to "kill him."

Next, a fourth man arrived and spoke with the three men. This man and Lawrence then walked to the vehicle that the three men had arrived in earlier. Johnson, Lawrence, and Stephenson then entered a different bar. Once inside, Lawrence discretely handed Johnson an object that was smaller than a hand, reflected the light, and glistened slightly. Johnson handed the object back to Lawrence. The three men then left the second bar, only to return to its vestibule for roughly three minutes.

2

Johnson, Lawrence, and Stephenson then returned to the first bar. Bouncers waved a wand designed to detect weapons over Lawrence, and it appeared that Stephenson and Johnson were not wanded. The three men found the victim on the dance floor.

The men surrounded the victim. Lawrence and Stephenson attacked the victim and pushed him into Johnson. Johnson grabbed the victim with his left hand and made a series of jabbing motions with his right hand. Stephenson also made a series of underhanded jabbing motions at the victim. Johnson separated from the fight and appeared to be touching his jacket as he walked back toward the fight. Johnson reengaged and kicked and stomped on the victim repeatedly. Bouncers moved the four men toward the stairs, and Stephenson punched the victim, knocking him down the stairs. The victim stumbled down the stairs out of the front door and collapsed onto the sidewalk. Blood pooled around him.

Johnson exited the bar, looked down at the victim lying on the sidewalk, and kicked him in the head. Stephenson exited the bar next and attempted to kick the victim in the head, but he missed and stumbled. Lawrence exited the bar last and stepped over the victim, who was being tended to by a bouncer. Johnson, Stephenson, and Lawrence jogged away from the bar. Law enforcement located Johnson's jacket soon after the incident at Johnson's girlfriend's house; the sleeves were wet as though they had recently been washed.

The victim was transported to a hospital where he was pronounced dead after resuscitation efforts were unsuccessful. The cause of death was excessive bleeding from sharp-force injuries, and the manner of death was homicide. The victim had six stab wounds-two to his chest, three to his back, and one to his arm.

3

Johnson was charged with two counts of second-degree murder under an accomplice-liability theory. He waived his right to a jury trial. After a court trial, the district court found Johnson guilty on both counts^[2] but entered a conviction on only count 1. The district court sentenced Johnson to 480 months in prison. This appeal followed.

DECISION

Johnson argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. "When reviewing a claim of evidentiary insufficiency, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict." State v. Leake, 699 N.W.2d 312, 319 (Minn. 2005). "We carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [factfinder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt . . . ." State v. Waiters, 929 N.W.2d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted). If the state uses circumstantial evidence to prove an element of the offense, we apply a heightened standard of review. State v. Porte, 832 N.W.2d 303, 309 (Minn.App. 2013). Circumstantial evidence is "evidence from which the factfinder

4

can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist." State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

We review the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence by conducting a two-step analysis. State v. German, 929 N.W.2d 466, 472 (Minn.App. 2019). First, we identify the circumstances proved by the state. State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013). We "assume that the [fact-finder] resolved any factual disputes in a manner that is consistent" with the verdict. State v. Moore, 846 N.W.2d 83, 88 (Minn. 2014). Second, we "determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt." Loving v. State, 891 N.W.2d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted). We do not defer to the fact-finder's choice between reasonable inferences. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d at 599. We must reverse the conviction if a reasonable inference other than guilt exists. Loving, 891 N.W.2d at 643. But we will uphold the conviction if the "circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain" which leads "directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt." State v. Peterson, 910 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

Here, the district court found Johnson...