X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Barbara Bell Johnson called 911 shortly before midnight. She was hysterical. She kept saying, “Come, come. I killed him.” She told the dispatch operator, “Sweetheart, come on.” The dispatch operator said, “I can’t come if you don’t tell me where you are.” Johnson gave directions on how to find her house, ending with, “I’m the third house on the right.” Then she said, “I need to get my clothes on. I need to get dressed.” She kept repeating, “I just shot my husband.” She said she shot him “through the heart.” She cried that he had beaten her, and now “he cannot do this to me anymore . . . I just killed that son of a bitch.” When asked what kind of a gun she used, she told the dispatcher that it was a “380.” When the dispatch operator asked her if her husband was still alive and to check his pulse, she said, “I’m afraid to touch him. If he’s alive, he’ll kill me.” Later she exclaimed, “He twitched,” and “he’s like a bull of a man.” She cried impatiently, “Come on, baby, bring someone out here to me.” When the dispatch operator told her that “they’re on the way,” she said “I called people before and I never pressed any charges. . . . Somebody come here.” Officer Eric Jones arrived, handcuffed Johnson, placed her in his patrol car and went inside to find Johnson’s dead husband. He made a brief protective sweep of the house and saw on the kitchen counter the .380 pistol that Johnson had used to shoot her husband. He came back outside and called the paramedics. The paramedics arrived shortly thereafter. About 15 minutes later, investigators from the sheriff’s office arrived and moved Johnson to another patrol car, because Jones had to leave. The sheriff’s deputies went inside Johnson’s home to begin an initial investigation into the shooting. While the patrol video and audio camera recorded her, Johnson continued to explain why she shot her husband and offered to cooperate with the officers. At no time did she suggest that she wanted the officers to get out of her house or to end their crime scene investigation. During the midtrial suppression hearing outside the presence of the jury, Johnson argued that the “emergency aid doctrine” would not permit the officers to make their third warrantless entry into Johnson’s home. It was during this entry that they collected her gun and a spent shell casing, took photographs of the living room and bedroom, and made measurements of the rooms. Although he also addressed the emergency aid doctrine, the trial judge focused primarily on the issue of consent. He asked the parties, “Well, what do you make of the defendant’s statement on the tape where she volunteers to the officer, ‘Do you want me to go back in and show you where we were standing and that sort of thing?’ “ The trial judge later said, “I think it was clear and unequivocal that she was voluntarily consenting to help him perform a search of the house.” The trial judge denied the motion to suppress evidence, ruling that Johnson had consented to the search and in any event, the majority of the evidence obtained was admissible, because it was in plain view when Officer Jones first entered Johnson’s home and conducted a lawful protective sweep of the area. After hearing all of the evidence, the jury rejected Johnson’s claim of self-defense and found her guilty of murder. It sentenced her to 15 years of imprisonment. The 6th Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. The 6th Court held that Jones was justified in his first two entries into Johnson’s home “under the emergency aid and protective sweep doctrines, to determine whether anyone inside the house needed assistance or endangered anyone else” and to confirm the death of Johnson’s husband. The 6th Court then stated that the third entry was not authorized by the emergency aid doctrine. Thus, the evidence collected during that entry was inadmissible to the extent that it had not been in plain view during the first two entries. The 6th Court concluded that the admission of this evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, because “[t]he only ultimate issue before the jury was whether the shooting was in self-defense,” and the “improper evidence was simply where the spent shell casing came to rest behind a chair.” The 6th Court did not address the trial judge’s first ruling that Johnson consented to the limited investigatory search of her home. HOLDING:Affirmed. The Fourth Amendment, the CCA stated, protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrantless police entry into a person’s home is presumptively unreasonable unless it falls within the scope of one of a few well-delineated exceptions. One such exception, the CCA stated, is a consensual entry. Typically, whether consent is voluntary turns on questions of fact and is determined from the totality of the circumstances. For that reason, a finding of voluntary consent is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. The operative inquiry, the CCA stated, is whether the evidence presented at the suppression hearing fairly supports the trial court’s finding of voluntary consent by clear and convincing evidence. The standard for measuring the scope of consent “is that of ‘objective’ reasonableness” or what the ordinary reasonable person would have understood under the same circumstances. Arguably, the CCA stated, a homeowner who makes a 911 call reporting a shooting and asking for immediate police assistance does not, by that single act, consent to the responding police searching through his bedroom belongings. But by making such a call, the CCA stated, “surely the objectively reasonable homeowner envisions that the responding police will enter his home, view the scene, take pictures of that scene, and make a cursory search for relevant evidence directly relating to the homeowner’s emergency call.” Under those circumstances, the CCA upheld the trial court’s denial of Johnson’s motion to suppress based upon her consent to search. OPINION:Cochran, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Keller, P.J., Womack, Keasler, Hervey and Holcomb, JJ., joined. CONCURRENCE:Johnson, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Meyers and Price, JJ., joined. “Appellant repeatedly admitted that she had shot her husband. She so testified at trial. The issue before the jury was whether the shooting was justified as an act of self-defense. That issue was fully litigated through the testimony of appellant, the medical examiner, and various witnesses for each side who testified about the behavior of both appellant and the victim and the nature of their relationship. The photographs in the second group did not reveal any fact or circumstance not included in permissible testimony by one or more witnesses, nor were they probative of the critical issue, self-defense. They were admitted in error, but, beyond reasonable doubt, the error did not contribute to the conviction or punishment.”

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.