State v. Johnson
Louisiana Supreme Court
389 So. 2d 372 (1980)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
The State of Louisiana (plaintiff) charged Nicholas Johnson (defendant) with armed robbery. During trial, Johnson presented testimony from Roy Lee Jarrell that Jarrell knew Johnson to be honest and had never heard anyone accuse Johnson of stealing. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Jarrell if Jarrell’s opinion of Johnson would change if Jarrell knew that (1) Johnson was arrested for selling narcotics, (2) Johnson was arrested for possession of a dangerous weapon, and (3) Johnson pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Johnson’s counsel objected to the prosecution’s mention of arrests on cross-examination and the prosecutor’s failure to mention the specific possession offense to which Johnson pleaded guilty. The trial court overruled the objections. Johnson also testified in his own defense. On direct examination, Johnson said that he had not been convicted of any crimes involving dishonesty, violence, or carrying or possessing a gun. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Johnson several questions about his prior arrests and sought details about Johnson’s arrest for possession of a dangerous weapon. Johnson explained that officers had found a club in his car during the narcotics arrest, but that the charge was later dropped. Johnson’s counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s questioning of Johnson. The jury found Johnson guilty, and he appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dennis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.