Title: Johnson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 172, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 7, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TYWANN JOHNSON,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  No. 172, 2012 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§  Court Below – Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§  in and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  CR. ID No. 1007020056  
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
    Submitted:  September 5, 2012 
 
 
 
 
       Decided:  September 7, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
This 7th day of September 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
1) 
Tywann Johnson, the defendant-appellant (“Johnson”), appeals 
from murder and robbery convictions after a Superior Court jury trial.  
Johnson’s sole claim on appeal is that the trial judge erroneously admitted 
into evidence taped telephone calls that he made from a Delaware prison, in 
violation of his constitutional rights.  We have concluded that claim is 
without merit. 
 
2) 
On June 12, 2010, Johnson and Luis Sierra (“Sierra”) stole 
marijuana from a man at gunpoint, after which Sierra shot the victim three 
times, killing him.  Days later, the police investigating the crime spoke with 
Johnson’s girlfriend, who told them that Johnson had “asked her to provide 
him with an alibi.”  In early August 2010, Johnson and Sierra were both 
indicted on charges of Murder in the First Degree, Robbery in the First 
Degree, Conspiracy in the Second Degree, and several related weapons 
charges.  When the police arrested Johnson, he “spontaneously stated . . . 
that [the police] ‘scared the truth’ out of his alibi witness.” 
 
3) 
After Johnson’s arrest, prosecutors believed that Johnson 
“would continue to try to pressure [his girlfriend] to provide him with an 
alibi defense, or otherwise attempt to interfere with the prosecution of the 
case, while in prison awaiting trial.”  As a precaution, the prosecutors 
subpoenaed tapes of Johnson’s prison telephone calls.  Those tapes—which 
contained several incriminating statements by Johnson—were later 
introduced at trial by the State. 
 
4) 
A jury trial was held in the Superior Court beginning 
September 7, 2011.  The jury convicted Johnson on all charged counts.  On 
March 21, 2012, Johnson was sentenced to life in prison.  This appeal 
followed. 
5) 
Johnson claims that his Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment 
rights were violated by the introduction at trial of his recorded prison phone 
calls.1  We review questions of law, including constitutional claims, de 
novo.2 
6) 
This Court has held that for Fourth Amendment purposes, 
prisoners who are notified by prison officials that their communications will 
be monitored have no expectation of privacy in the mail they send or the 
telephone calls they make.3  Johnson does not dispute that before he made 
each call, a recorded message was played informing him that the calls would 
be monitored and recorded.  Therefore, Johnson’s Fourth Amendment claim 
must fail.   
7) 
Johnson also purports to raise Fifth and Sixth Amendment 
claims, apparently premised on an alleged violation of his Miranda rights.  
He asks us to adopt a rule that prison officials must obtain permission from a 
defendant’s lawyer to record his prison phone calls.  Johnson cites no 
judicial opinion or other authoritative source of law to support that 
contention.  
8) 
Separately, Johnson’s brief appears to claim that the State 
violated his First Amendment rights under Johnson v. State4 (“Johnson I”).  
                                          
 
1 Johnson also claims that the introduction of that evidence violated Delaware’s 
wiretapping statute, but that claim was rejected in this Court’s recent decision in Rowan 
v. State, 45 A.2d 149 (Del. 2012). 
2 Cooke v. State, 977 A.2d 803, 840 (Del. 2009). 
3 Rowan v. State, 45 A.3d 149 (Del. 2012); Johnson v. State, 983 A.2d 902 (Del. 2009). 
4 Johnson v. State, 983 A.2d at 902. 
In Johnson I, we adopted the Third Circuit’s standard for reviewing such 
claims:  first, the contested actions (i.e., the State’s obtaining of prisoner 
communications) must further an important or substantial government 
interest “unrelated to the suppression of [speech];” and second, those actions 
“were no greater than necessary for the protection of that interest.”5  
9) 
The State’s actions in Johnson’s case satisfies the Johnson I 
test.  Like this case, Johnson I was concerned with witness tampering.  
There, we found that an “important or substantial government interest” 
existed to justify the governmental interference.  Johnson suggests, however, 
that the second prong of Johnson I was not met, because the State’s 
subpoena was for an indefinite duration.  But, the Superior Court found that 
“by its very nature, this investigation was of limited duration and would 
conclude at the time of trial.”  Therefore, this claim lacks merit as well. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the 
Superior Court are affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
5 Id. at 917.