State Of Washington v. Bradford Marselas Johnson ( 2017 )

:6 WV CI AON LIU
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 75367-3-1
Respondent, )
) DIVISION ONE
v. )
)
BRADFORD MARSELAS JOHNSON, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. ) FILED: November 13, 2017
)
BECKER, J. — Bradford Johnson seeks reversal of his robbery conviction
based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm.
Two men robbed a medical marijuana dispensary in Everett on September
28, 2015. They threatened the store clerk with what appeared to be a gun and
made off with money and marijuana.
Police identified Johnson and Garrett Comer as suspects. Both were later
charged with first degree robbery. Corner pled guilty, indicating in his plea
statement that he committed the crime with Johnson.
Johnson's case went to trial in June 2016. The sole contested issue was
the identity of Corner's accomplice; the defense position was that the State
lacked sufficient proof that Johnson participated in the crime. The dispensary
clerk testified and identified Johnson as one of the robbers. Another State
witness, Corner's friend, testified that he saw Corner and Johnson on September
No. 75367-3-1/2
28 and Corner told him that he and Johnson had robbed the dispensary. The
jury also considered store security footage depicting the robbery. The footage
included images of Corner's accomplice sufficient to help the jury identify him.
Comer testified for the defense. He said that he committed the crime with an
unidentified "black male" who was not Johnson. Johnson did not testify.
The jury returned a guilty verdict. Johnson was sentenced to 36 months'
confinement and 18 months' community custody. He appeals from the judgment
and sentence.
Johnson argues that he was deprived a fair trial due to prosecutorial
misconduct. He must demonstrate that in the context of the record and all of the
circumstances of trial, the prosecutor's conduct was both improper and
prejudicial. In re Pers. Restraint of Glasmann, 175 Wash. 2d 696, 704, 286 P.3d
673(2012). Misconduct is prejudicial if there is a substantial likelihood it affected
the jury verdict. Glasmann, 175 Wash. 2d at 704.
Johnson contends the prosecutor misrepresented testimony by Corner
about tattoos. Comer testified on direct in the defense case that he believed his
accomplice had a tattoo on his forearm that said "Loyalty" in cursive and "read
downwards from his elbow to his wrist." During cross-examination, Corner
testified that he has a tattoo on his own arm that says "Respect" in cursive. The
prosecutor asked,"So identical to the tattoo in the one you described on the
black male?" Comer responded,"No.. . . There's different sort of cursive fonts."
The prosecutor then asked,"But basically the same tattoos,'Respect' tattoo?"
Comer responded that he thought his accomplice's tattoo said "Loyalty." On
2
No. 75367-3-1/3
redirect, Corner repeated that he believed his accomplice's tattoo said "Loyalty."
Police testimony established that Johnson does not have a "Loyalty" tattoo.
In closing, the prosecutor argued that Corner was not a credible witness.
He suggested that Corner fabricated the story about his accomplice's tattoos by
using his own tattoo as a model. But it was the prosecutor who mixed up the two
tattoos. Although Corner consistently testified that he thought the accomplice's
tattoo was the word "Loyalty," the prosecutor asserted that Corner had first
described it as the word "Respect."
He described this arm tattoo, and first he described it on
direct as the word "Respect."
And then on cross we asked, Well, wait. You have a tattoo
that says "Respect." So you guys had matching tattoos?
And then he said, No, no. no. I'm sorry. He had a tattoo, the
black male had the tattoo "Loyalty." He couldn't remember his own
story.
Garrett Comer was coming up with these tattoos as he went
along, and suddenly, he got confused. He started referencing his
own tattoo instead of this black male's tattoo.
Why? Because he's not telling truth. It's hard to keep lies in
your mind and keep track.
A defense objection to these remarks was overruled.
During defense closing argument, counsel described Corner's testimony
differentiating his tattoo from his accomplice's. Counsel reminded jurors to rely
on their recollection of witness testimony.
The prosecutor raised the tattoo issue again on rebuttal:
What the evidence is, is on June 3rd, Garrett Corner started
talking about these tattoos. He came up with them. He's the one
who created it. ...
. . . Of course, he did make one mistake. Counsel didn't talk
about this but let's do talk about it.
The "Respect," because that's Garrett Corner's tattoo.
Garrett Corner testified that it was the black male's tattoo. He
3
No. 75367-3-1/4
screwed up. Garrett Corner got confused about the story he was
telling and corrected it and said it was "Loyalty."
A prosecutor has wide latitude to argue reasonable inferences from the
evidence and may comment on a witness's veracity so long as a personal
opinion is not expressed and the comments are not intended to incite the jury's
passion. Glasmann, 175 Wash. 2d at 704; State v. Stith, 71 Wash. App. 14, 21, 856
P.2d 415 (1993). A prosecutor may not mislead the jury by misstating the
evidence. State v. Guizzotti, 60 Wash. App. 289, 296, 803 P.2d 808, review
denied, 116 Wash. 2d 1026 (1991). Johnson contends the prosecutor's remarks
about the tattoos and Comer's credibility were unsupported by the evidence and
conveyed the prosecutor's personal opinion that Corner was lying.
Corner did not testify that Johnson had a "Respect" tattoo. The prosecutor
misstated the evidence by asserting that he did. But viewing the prosecutor's
remarks in the context of the record and all the circumstances of trial, we
conclude that the prosecutor simply misspoke in the above excerpts. We do not
view the remarks as a personal opinion on Corner's veracity or as a deliberate
attempt to mislead the jury. Aside from the tattoo testimony, there was ample
evidence to support an inference that Corner lacked credibility. For example, the
prosecutor suggested it was unrealistic that Corner would not know the name of
his accomplice, as Comer alleged, in light of his testimony that they had spent
time together on several occasions before the robbery. The prosecutor also
discussed Corner's assertion in his plea statement that Johnson was his
accomplice.
4
No. 75367-3-1/5
In any event, Johnson has not shown prejudice. He argues only that
"Identification of Corner's accomplice was the sole contested issue at trial, with
Corner's testimony being the heart of the defense." He does not explain with any
particularity how the challenged remarks affected the jury verdict.
Appellate costs will not be imposed against Johnson. The State
recognizes costs may not be imposed because there has been no change in
Johnson's indigent status. RAP 14.2.
Affirmed.
13ei cf4..e-e.f.
WE CONCUR:
5