Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

State v. Johnson

Supreme Court of North Carolina
344 S.E.2d (1986)


Richard Johnson (defendant) and his wife, Brenda, were separated. The couple had two children together: an 11-year-old son, Christopher, and a five-year-old daughter, Joyce. Johnson retained custody of the children. At one point, Johnson and Brenda engaged in an argument over Brenda’s access to the children. Brenda stated that Johnson threatened to kill the children. Not long after, Christopher was brought to the hospital and was diagnosed as suffering from organophosphate (insecticide) poisoning. Christopher was administered an antidote and was released the following day. Later that month, Joyce was brought to the hospital and was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection. The doctor prescribed Joyce a sweet-smelling, dark-orange, liquid antibiotic. Several days later, Johnson told Christopher to look after Joyce while he went into town. Johnson then gave Joyce a teaspoon of white liquid. At trial, Christopher testified that the liquid had an odor similar to bug poison. Johnson testified that he had given Joyce her antibiotic. A few minutes after Johnson left, Joyce became very sick. Upon his return home, Johnson was made aware of Joyce’s illness. Joyce was rushed to the hospital, where she later died. The doctor who treated Joyce testified that Joyce exhibited the symptoms of an oral ingestion of organophosphate poison. Johnson testified that he had sprayed his house with insecticide to alleviate an insect problem and denied threatening to kill his children. The jury found Johnson guilty of first-degree murder. Johnson appealed the decision, claiming that the trial judge improperly failed to instruct the jury that (1) a specific intent to kill was a necessary element of first-degree murder and (2) a conviction of the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter was possible. The Supreme Court of North Carolina heard the appeal.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Meyer, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 498,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 498,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial