People v. Johnson
72 Cal.Rptr.2d 805, 62 Cal. App. 4th 608, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2166 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a criminal defendant wishes to testify against their counsel's advice due to suspected perjury, the trial court violates the defendant's constitutional right to testify by precluding the testimony entirely; the proper course is to permit the defendant to testify in a narrative fashion.
Facts:
- Anthony L. Johnson was accused of kidnapping, robbing, and brutally sexually assaulting seven different women over a period of several years.
- Six of the attacks shared a distinctive modus operandi where Johnson would approach a victim near her car late at night, force her back into the car, direct her to drive a short distance, and then sexually assault her in the backseat.
- Physical evidence, including DNA from five cases and fingerprints from two vehicles, linked Johnson to the crimes.
- Two victims also identified Johnson in a police lineup.
- During trial, after the prosecution rested, Johnson's defense counsel informed the judge in an in-chambers conference that he had an 'ethical conflict' with Johnson's desire to testify.
- Defense counsel stated he was 'ethically barred' and 'not willing to call Mr. Johnson as a witness despite his desire to testify,' clarifying it was not a matter of trial tactics.
- Johnson confirmed to the court that he wanted to testify.
- The court sided with defense counsel and refused to allow Johnson to testify.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony L. Johnson was charged in a state trial court with numerous counts of violent sexual offenses, kidnapping, and robbery.
- A jury convicted Johnson on the charges.
- The trial court sentenced Johnson to five consecutive life terms plus 440 years in prison.
- Johnson, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court violate a criminal defendant's constitutional right to testify by precluding their testimony based solely on defense counsel's assertion of an 'ethical conflict' rooted in a belief the defendant will commit perjury?
Opinions:
Majority - Kremer, P. J.
Yes, the trial court violated Johnson's constitutional right to testify. The right to testify is a fundamental personal right guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which a defendant may exercise even over their attorney's objection. When a conflict arises between this right and an attorney's ethical duty to avoid presenting perjured testimony, the court must find an accommodation rather than completely denying the right. The court held that the 'narrative approach'—where the defendant testifies without direct examination and counsel does not rely on the false testimony in closing arguments—is the best accommodation of these competing interests. Precluding the defendant's testimony entirely, as the trial court did here, improperly subordinates a fundamental constitutional right and substitutes the judgment of counsel and the court for that of the jury as the arbiter of credibility. However, the court concluded this constitutional error was subject to a harmless error analysis under Chapman v. California. Given the overwhelming evidence of Johnson's guilt, including DNA, fingerprints, a distinctive modus operandi, and victim identifications, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not contribute to the verdict.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'narrative approach' as the preferred procedure in California for resolving the conflict between a defendant's right to testify and counsel's ethical duty to avoid suborning perjury. It firmly rejects the complete preclusion of testimony as an unconstitutional solution. However, by applying a harmless error analysis rather than a rule of per se reversal, the court limits the practical impact of the ruling. This means that while denying the right to testify in this context is a constitutional error, it will not lead to a new trial if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, potentially reducing the incentive for trial courts to strictly follow the narrative procedure in all cases.
