Johnson v. State.dissent

2017 Ark. 137
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedApril 19, 2017
DocketCR-17-312
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 Ark. 137 (Johnson v. State.dissent) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. State.dissent, 2017 Ark. 137 (Ark. 2017).

Opinion

Cite as 2017 Ark. 137

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-17-312

STACEY EUGENE JOHNSON Opinion Delivered April 19, 2017 APPELLANT

V. DISSENTING OPINION.

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE

KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice

I dissent from the majority’s decision today to remand the matter to the circuit court

for a hearing on Johnson’s motion for postconviction DNA testing and to stay Johnson’s

execution. Simply put, Johnson has presented these same arguments regarding testing of

DNA on numerous occasions in the two decades since his conviction for Carol Heath’s

murder. At trial, the testimony established that the DNA pattern found on the hair near Ms.

Heath’s body at the crime scene showed that the DNA in the hair was consistent with

Johnson’s. Testing further showed that the DNA pattern found on the hair would occur

among 1 in every 720 million African-Americans. Also at trial, the saliva on the partially

smoked cigarette found in the pocket of the shirt at the park was also consistent with

Johnson’s DNA, and the shirt contained blood consistent with Ms. Heath’s DNA.

In this case, the majority erroneously interprets Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-

112-201 to include any and all claims presented under this statute. Here, it is clear from the

record that Johnson cannot prevail under this statute. Johnson must demonstrate that “the Cite as 2017 Ark. 137

scientific predicate for the claim could not have been previously discovered through the

exercise of due diligence and the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of

the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that

no reasonable fact-finder would find Johnson guilty of the underlying offense.” Arkansas

Code Annotated § 16-112-201(a)(2)(Repl. 2016). In sum, Johnson cannot prevail.

Accordingly, I dissent.

WOOD and WOMACK, JJ., join.

2 CR-17-312

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 16-112-201
Arkansas § 16-112-201(a)(2)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 Ark. 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-statedissent-ark-2017.