State v. Johnson

Decision Date04 February 2003
Docket NumberNo. 24483.,24483.
Citation95 S.W.3d 221
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeremiah V. JOHNSON, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Emmett D. Queener, Assistant State Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W.(Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Karen L. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

ROBERT S. BARNEY, Judge.

Jeremiah V. Johnson("Appellant") appeals from his conviction and sentence after a jury trial found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder in the first degree of his sisterCarrie Johnson.§ 565.020.1In its judgment, the Circuit Court of Webster County imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for probation or parole.

Appellant raises four points of trial court error.Appellant maintains the trial court abused its discretion in: (1) submitting a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication/drug use which violated his right to present the defense of a pre-existing mental disease or defect which was triggered or released by ingestion of LSD; (2) sustaining the State's strike for cause of a venire member; (3) applying a different standard in ruling on Appellant's motion to strike a venire member for cause than it applied to a State's strike for cause of a venire member; and (4) excluding a handwritten letter signed by the victim which purportedly supported Appellant's defense that the victim's death was the result of Appellant's mental disease or defect.We affirm.

Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict.State v. Crawford,32 S.W.3d 201, 204(Mo.App.2000).

The record shows that on the night of February 18, 2000, Appellant's brother, Matthew Johnson, and his friend, Heath Evans, arrived at the Johnson house after attending a basketball game.When the boys got there, they found Appellant and the victim, Carrie Johnson, sitting in the living room watching television.Mr. and Mrs. Johnson were visiting family in California and were not home.The four individuals made small talk, after which Matthew and his friend went into the kitchen for ice cream.The boys returned to the living room, and Appellant and Carrie went to Carrie's bedroom.

Some time later, Appellant called for Matthew to come into Carrie's bedroom.When he went to her room, Matthew found Carrie on the floor on her knees with Appellant behind her with a butcher-type knife and a Bible.Appellant asked Matthew what he thought would happen if Appellant cut Carrie's throat, and Matthew answered, "I guess she'd bleed to death."However, Matthew didn't think Appellant was serious because both Appellant and Carrie were smiling, so Matthew returned to the living room.

Later, the boys saw Appellant and Carrie in the kitchen.Appellant's arm was around Carrie's shoulder, and he still held a knife.Appellant stated that he had LSD, and he stuck it in Carrie's mouth.Appellant then asked Carrie if she got the LSD on her tongue, and she replied she had.Matthew told Appellant that he didn't like drugs and that he didn't want to be embarrassed in front of his friend.At that point, Appellant released Carrie and went and sat down in front of the wood stove, apologizing to Matthew about the drugs.Heath stated that he saw Appellant sitting in front of the wood stove, rocking back and forth and shaking.Matthew returned to the living room, but it is unclear whether Carrie returned to her room or stayed in the kitchen.

The next time the boys saw Appellant, he appeared in the doorway of the living room, standing behind Carrie, with his arm around her, holding a knife to her throat.Appellant stated that acid was the "Second Coming of Christ" and began to shake.Appellant began shaking and fell backwards over a chair, taking Carrie down with him, and pulling the knife across the front of her neck.After they fell onto the floor, Carrie rolled off of Appellant and lay there for a second before getting up.As Carrie ran out of the living room holding her throat, the boys both noticed that she had blood on her hands.Appellant, who was lying on his back on the floor, began stabbing himself in the chest.However, even at this point, Matthew believed it was a joke because both Appellant and Carrie were smiling the entire time.

The boys followed Carrie upstairs where they found her lying on her side in her parents' bedroom, bleeding from a cut on the right side of her throat and making a gurgling noise.The boys then ran back downstairs, where they heard Appellant say something about a gun.Since Appellant was between Matthew and the phone, he and Heath ran outside, got into Matthew's car and drove to Pam Smith's house, a neighbor who lived a half mile down the road, to call for help.As the boys were driving away from the Johnson house, Heath saw Appellant running in the direction that Carrie had gone.

When the boys arrived at Pam Smith's house, Matthew told her to call 911.Ms. Smith called 911, telling the dispatcher that Matthew claimed Appellant had just cut his sister's throat and that Matthew believed Appellant might be on LSD.Ms. Smith then called Appellant's older brother, Tim, who told her that Appellant must be on LSD and that she should go up to the house and talk to him.However, Ms. Smith refused to go to the Johnson house telling Tim he should be the one to go there since he was family.

After the 911 call was made, the boys returned to the Johnson house.As the boys sat in Matthew's car waiting for the deputies to arrive, they saw Appellant come out of the house, partially carrying or dragging Carrie.Appellant went to the middle of the yard and partially laid Carrie on his lap.

About ten minutes later, the police arrived, and the boys flagged them into the driveway.The officers shined their spotlights and saw Appellant in the yard with Carrie partially across his lap.Both were covered in blood, and Appellant appeared to have a knife in his hand.Carrie was still alive at this time because the officers could see her arm moving.At that point, the officers pulled their weapons, pointed them at Appellant, and ordered him to drop the knife.Appellant responded by saying that nobody listened to him.He also mumbled something about the "Second Coming of Christ."As the officers repeated their order for Appellant to drop the knife, Appellant repeatedly screamed that he loved his sister and wanted to relieve her from her pain.

The officers heard Appellant say that he was Jesus Christ and that his sister loved him and was willing to die for him.Appellant then raised the knife over his head in both hands and brought the knife down toward Carrie's neck.At that point the officers opened fire.Appellant was struck in the face by a bullet and knocked back.

The officers then rushed Appellant, handcuffed him, and restrained him with some difficulty.Appellant became resistant after the officers handcuffed him as he attempted to reach Carrie again.At that point, Appellant began twisting away, kicking at the officers.Appellant told one of the officers that he would "kick [his] ass" and that they did not know whom they were messing with.It took three or four officers to restrain Appellant.

Although Carrie was still moving after Appellant was shot, she was incoherent and unresponsive.A few minutes later, medical personnel arrived, and paramedics began to tend to Carrie.Once inside the ambulance, paramedics noticed two stab wounds to Carrie's chest, one of which had punctured a lung, in addition to the cuts to her neck.On the way to the hospital, Carrie stopped breathing.She had received two large lacerations on each side of her neck that had severed the jugular veins and carotid arteries.The medical examiner testified that Carrie bled to death as a result of the damage to the blood vessels in her neck.2

Appellant was transported by helicopter to the hospital.During the trip, he was coherent and responsive and answered questions appropriately.When he arrived at the hospital, Appellant was treated for his injuries.In addition to the bullet that had entered his nose and lodged behind his throat, Appellant had stab wounds to his chest and right leg.A toxicology examination of Appellant was performed.Although Appellant's blood tested positive for marijuana, the hospital lab lacked the ability to test for the presence of LSD, therefore, there was no toxicology report verifying Appellant's use of LSD on the night Carrie was killed.

In his defense, Appellant pleaded not guilty, and not guilty by reason of a mental disease or defect.Appellant later filed a notice of intent to rely on a defense of diminished capacity and a motion to allow evidence of voluntary drug usage.The State filed a motion in limine to preclude evidence of Appellant's voluntary drug usage under section 562.076.The trial court sustained a portion of the State's motion in limine, but allowed Appellant to present evidence of an underlying psychosis that was exacerbated by Appellant's ingestion of LSD.Appellant's expert, Dr. Thomas A. Blansett, testified that while the LSD did not cause his behavior, it may have played a role toward disinhibiting his already unstable emotions and thinking.

In his first point of error, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in submitting InstructionNo. 7, the voluntary intoxication/drug use instruction, MAI-CR3d 310.50, to the jury because he claims it directed the jury not to fully consider his defense that he had a preexisting mental disease or defect which was triggered or released by his ingestion of LSD.

During the jury instruction conference, the state submitted InstructionNo. 7, which reads as follows:

The state must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.However, in determining the defendant's guilt or innocence, you are instructed that a drugged condition from drugs will not relieve a...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
16 cases
  • State v. Tinsley
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 16, 2004
    ...of the evidence is not an issue in this appeal. "We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict." State v. Johnson, 95 S.W.3d 221, 222 (Mo.App.2003). The evidence adduced at trial reveals that on May 9, 2001, Myung Kyu Kim ("Kim") entered the American Bank in Baxter Springs, ......
  • State v. Koenig
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 29, 2003
    ...claims, we affirm the trial court's judgment. FACTS We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. State v. Johnson, 95 S.W.3d 221, 222 (Mo.App.2003). C.K. ("Victim") turned eleven years old on June 5, 1997. Between her eighth and eleventh birthdays, her father, Defendant,......
  • State v. Williams
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 29, 2003
    ...to the jury. We disagree. We affirm. FACTS We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. State v. Johnson, 95 S.W.3d 221, 222 (Mo.App. 2003). On November 12, 1999, Defendant and Denise Longley ("Longley") were caught shoplifting a hair clip and several pens by Wal-Ma......
  • State v. Robertson
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 31, 2006
    ...by Rule 28.03 fails to preserve a claim of error with respect to that instruction for purposes of appellate review. State v. Johnson, 95 S.W.3d 221, 225 (Mo.App. S.D.2003). Mr. Johnson, therefore, requests plain error review. Unpreserved points of error regarding instructions or verdict for......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Section 15.28 Voluntary Intoxication
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Criminal Practice Deskbook Chapter 15 Mental Factors
    • Invalid date
    ...the mental state of the defendant in Mouse v. State, 90 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002), a first degree assault case. In State v. Johnson 95 S.W.3d 221 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003), the defendant objected to the instruction submitted by the court on voluntary intoxication/drug use because his defen......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT