State of Tennessee v. Steven Woodrow Johnson

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2011-00859-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; September 7, 2012; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Steven Woodrow Johnson was convicted by a Davidson County jury of felony murder, especially aggravated burglary, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, following a trial. He received a life sentence for the felony murder conviction, along with concurrent sentences of ten years for especially aggravated burglary (which was later modified to aggravated burglary), five years for aggravated burglary, five years for aggravated assault, and three years for firearm possession during a dangerous felony. The trial court's judgments included some consecutive sentences but resulted in an effective life sentence.

On appeal, Johnson argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After reviewing the case, the court modified the especially aggravated burglary conviction to aggravated burglary and vacated the separate judgments for the merged counts, ordering the trial court to enter a single judgment consistent with this ruling. The court affirmed all other aspects of the trial court's judgments. The appeal was decided with input from multiple judges, and the opinion emphasized the procedural aspects of the trial and the specifics of the charges and convictions.

On November 22, 2008, a victim instructed two men to leave his residence, to which they complied. One of the men claimed that 'Dewayne' sent them to borrow money. After the victim returned to bed, he was awakened by a man with a gun who demanded he get up, then struck him in the head with the gun, causing him to fall. Gunshots followed, and the assailant broke through a bedroom window. The victim called 9-1-1 but did not hear any response from his brother. Notably, the intruder did not take any money stored in the victim's closet.

Richard Allen, who lived at 308 Dinwiddie Drive with Robert and Crystan Shawn Taylor, received a call from the appellant that evening. During a ride with appellant and two others, Allen learned they were planning a robbery to obtain $60,000 from the home of 'two old guys.' Allen chose not to participate and instructed Crystan to deny any calls from appellant. After news of a home invasion and murder broke, Allen inquired about the appellant's involvement, who denied any connection.

Crystan Shawn Taylor corroborated that Allen had her phone and instructed her to say he was not home if appellant called. After midnight, appellant called, and Crystan relayed Allen’s message, not fully understanding its implications, to which appellant replied, “That’s all I need to know.”

Alicia Catherine Johnson, appellant's wife, testified about their troubled marriage and mentioned overhearing appellant and another man discussing "hitting a lick" at a family dinner, which she associated with potential criminal activity. After the dinner, there was an argument between her and appellant, leading him to leave the home.

Alicia attempted to contact the appellant via his cellular phone, but he did not respond. Later that night, the appellant returned home with Richard Johnson, carrying Ancona, who had a leg injury, and both men placed him in the shower. Alicia noticed the appellant appeared very upset. Between 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., Wendy Johnson and Barber arrived at the home. Despite Alicia's inquiries, the appellant refused to explain the situation. Subsequently, he turned on the news, which reported on the victim, prompting him to remark, "That’s it."

Alicia testified that the appellant and his fiancée, Tangia Tobitt, attempted to intimidate her regarding her potential testimony, instilling fear in her. She spoke to Detective Curtis Hafley on two occasions, providing inconsistent statements. In her first statement on May 28, 2009, she claimed she was asleep when the appellant and others arrived, not mentioning Wendy Johnson or Barber and failing to report any blood. In her second statement on March 28, 2010, she added details but omitted a conversation she overheard about "hitting a lick," fearing repercussions.

Elizabeth Gail Barber recounted a meeting on November 22, 2008, in a Walmart parking lot with the appellant, Richard Johnson, and Ancona. The appellant proposed a robbery, asking Barber to use her truck for the crime. She followed them to a side street where they exchanged vehicles, witnessing the appellant retrieve a gun, which she believed was intended for the robbery. After the vehicle exchange, Barber and Wendy rode with the appellant to a White Castle, where the appellant later inquired about gunshots shortly after the meeting. Richard Johnson and Ancona returned in Barber’s truck, and Ancona got into the appellant's vehicle, which then drove to the appellant's parents' home, where Alicia was seen.

Barber also expressed concern about revealing her two-year-old son’s presence during the incident, fearing she might lose custody. She clarified inconsistencies regarding the gun's location in her statements to Detective Hafley, correcting her earlier claim about first seeing the gun at Walmart instead of Trinity Lane. Detective Paul Harris assisted in the investigation and arrested Francisco Ancona approximately eighty-eight hours post-incident, during which Ancona indicated he was waiting for a ride from the appellant and listed the appellant's address as his residence.

Detective Harris identified the appellant as a potential suspect in the homicide of Francisco Ancona based on speculation that someone assisted in the crime. On November 24, 2010, the appellant had his first police interview where he claimed to have taken Ancona to an Express Market on November 22, 2008, at approximately 8:30 p.m., and stated he was sick and at home all night, with no contact until noon the following day. Following this interview, he was not arrested and left the station. Investigator Kevin Carroll noted that appellant visited Ancona in jail seven times between November 30, 2008, and January 25, 2009, and was listed as 'sibling' in visitation records. Special Agent Richard Wesley Littlehale, involved in analyzing telephone records, created a visual aid for the jury based on call data provided by Detective Hafley. Detective Hafley was the lead investigator on the case, responding to the crime scene early on November 23, 2008, where he identified the entry and exit points related to the crime. After Ancona's arrest, Hafley obtained a search warrant for Ancona's residence and collected phone records for Ancona and the appellant. A member of the victim's family later contacted Hafley about a letter from Josh Young, who claimed that Richard Allen had information regarding the case. Allen informed Hafley about the appellant’s alleged attempt to involve him in a robbery, and this information was corroborated with phone records. From Ancona's arrest on November 23, 2008, to the appellant's arrest on January 26, 2009, there were numerous calls between the two. During his second interview on January 26, 2009, the appellant initially repeated his earlier statement but then altered his account, admitting that Ancona had mentioned planning a robbery and that he had been contacted by someone named Wendy Johnson to commit a robbery, although he claimed he did not discuss it with Ancona.

Vaughan, interviewed shortly after the appellant, denied meeting him, and no cellular records supported any communication between them. The appellant later claimed he left home twice that night to pick up Ancona, who had requested a ride, but his account conflicted with phone records and other statements. Detective Hafley confronted the appellant about these inconsistencies. The appellant eventually admitted to discussing a robbery with Allen and drove to Allen's house with Ancona and Richard Johnson, where Ancona tried to recruit Allen. After initially stating he was home during the robbery, the appellant changed his story to say he was driving alone at that time. He disclosed that he first went to the Youngs’ home with Johnson and Ancona under the guise of a request from someone named Dewayne, waiting in his vehicle while they approached the house. The appellant acknowledged that, if the first attempt had succeeded, he would have been the getaway driver but asserted he sought no money from the robbery and had no intention of benefiting from it. Detective Hafley provided details on calls between the appellant and Ancona based on phone records. 

Dr. Sandra Parrish Thomas testified regarding the victim's cause of death, a single gunshot wound to the head, although she did not perform the autopsy. The appellant, Steven Woodrow Johnson, claimed he was not truthful during police interviews due to a threatening call warning him not to testify against Ancona, which raised concerns for his family's safety. He later revealed that he had been approached by Dewayne Vaughan about participating in a robbery two weeks prior but declined. Johnson denied discussing a robbery at a family dinner the night of the incident and stated that Ancona had asked for a ride to buy marijuana, unaware of any robbery plans. He learned about the first robbery attempt only after it happened. Additionally, he denied having a gun in his truck that night but heard Ancona and Allen discussing a gun while in his vehicle. Johnson admitted to calling Allen after the initial failed robbery attempt but handed the phone to Ancona, who needed to contact Allen. He drove Johnson and Ancona to meet Allen at the Taylor residence and was present while they discussed plans for another robbery, but claimed ignorance of Ancona's intention to return to the Youngs’ residence that night.

Appellant was aware that Ancona intended to commit a robbery on November 22 but did not know the specifics. He admitted to visiting 'Red's house and acknowledged his brother, Richard, drove Ancona to the Young residence, where Ancona killed the victim, though appellant learned of this only after the fact. Ancona returned to appellant’s home injured early the next morning. Subsequently, the jury convicted appellant of first-degree felony murder, especially aggravated burglary, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during a dangerous felony. The trial court merged the aggravated burglary convictions but issued separate judgments for each count. Appellant’s motion for a new trial was denied, leading to this appeal.

In addressing the sufficiency of the evidence, appellant argued that the State's witnesses were not credible and that there was a lack of physical evidence linking him to the crime. The court, however, upheld the State's position, noting that the standard for appellate review is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence favorably for the prosecution. The burden of proof shifted to appellant, who must show that no reasonable jury could have reached such a conclusion. The court emphasized that determinations of witness credibility and evidence weight are to be resolved by the jury, and it will not re-evaluate these assessments on appeal.

Appellant contends that the evidence against him is insufficient to uphold his convictions due to the alleged lack of credibility of the State's witnesses, highlighting inconsistencies in their statements and admissions of untruthfulness. Specifically, he notes Alicia Johnson's admission of dishonesty in her initial police interview and Richard Allen's potential bias stemming from his incarceration and the benefits he might receive for testifying against appellant. Appellant also points to inconsistencies in Barber's statements and the absence of charges against her despite her involvement in the crime.

However, the court emphasizes that the determination of witness credibility lies with the jury, which can discredit appellant's testimony and credit the State’s witnesses. The jury was justified in concluding that appellant collaborated with Ancona and others in planning the crime. 

Although appellant argues the lack of physical evidence linking him to the crime, the State maintains that this is irrelevant to the felony murder conviction since he can be held criminally responsible for actions committed by Ancona. Under Tennessee law, an individual can be deemed criminally responsible for another's conduct if they acted with intent to assist or benefit from the offense. Criminal responsibility does not require proof of a specific act, as mere association with the offender can imply participation. Ultimately, the evidence, viewed favorably towards the State, supports the jury's conclusion that appellant acted in concert with Ancona in the robbery that led to the victim's death.

Appellant's testimony indicated he did not recall making several statements, yet Detective Hafley confirmed that appellant admitted to his role in the robbery's planning, specifically as the intended getaway driver. Witness Alicia Johnson reported hearing appellant discuss plans to commit a robbery with Ancona and noted that appellant directed her to a news broadcast related to the incident. Allen added that appellant sought his involvement in the robbery, while Barber testified that appellant solicited her truck for the robbery in exchange for payment and was present with him and others during the planning. Barber also observed appellant with a gun and overheard him asking about potential gunshots linked to the theft of her truck. Cellular phone records supported the testimonies of the State's witnesses, leading to the conclusion that evidence sufficiently established appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Regarding modification, although appellant did not raise this issue, the State argued for reducing his conviction from especially aggravated burglary to aggravated burglary. Tennessee law allows appellate courts to address unraised errors if they impact substantial rights. The State cited Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-404(d), which prohibits convictions for both especially aggravated burglary and another offense stemming from the same act, as the serious bodily injury of victim John Young was an element in both counts for which appellant was convicted. Therefore, the State asserted that appellant's felony murder conviction precludes the charge of especially aggravated burglary, given that both offenses involved the same act against the same victim.

The act of killing the victim constituted the 'serious bodily injury' necessary for enhancing a burglary charge to especially aggravated burglary, leading to the conclusion that prosecution for both especially aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery is barred by statute. Relevant case law indicates that a conviction for especially aggravated burglary cannot coexist with a murder charge since the killing qualifies as serious bodily injury. Consequently, any conviction for especially aggravated burglary must be modified to aggravated burglary, a lesser-included offense. The trial court's earlier decision to merge convictions and impose a ten-year sentence for especially aggravated burglary was incorrect; the conviction should instead reflect aggravated burglary with a five-year sentence, aligning with the maximum imposed for other convictions. On remand, the trial court is directed to enter a three-year sentence for the aggravated burglary conviction, ensuring only one judgment of conviction is recorded for both counts. The court vacates judgments for counts two and four, remanding for a unified judgment. All other trial court judgments are affirmed.