P. v. Johnson
Three times, juries have found Glen Maurice Johnson guilty of second degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and accessory to murder for his role in a shooting in Bakersfield on September 20, 2002. On appeal after his first trial, we reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial because the court's erroneous instruction on reasonable doubt impermissibly lowered the prosecution's constitutional burden of proof. (People v. Johnson (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 976 (Johnson I).) On appeal after his second trial, we reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial because the prosecutor's withholding of discovery about his sole eyewitness violated Johnson's constitutional right to due process. (People v. Johnson (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 776 (Johnson II).)[1]
On appeal after his third trial, Johnson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the court's evidentiary rulings and instructions, the prosecutor's conduct, his attorney's competence, the propriety of convictions of both second degree murder and accessory to murder, and three sentencing enhancements. We strike those three enhancements from the judgment but otherwise affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Johnson