Opinion ID: 2814398
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Johnson’s Custodial Statements to the Police

Text: On the afternoon of June 21, 2006, upon learning that Johnson had been taken into custody that morning on drug charges, two detectives from the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Department—Detectives Everett Hargrave and Bruce Campbell—went to interview Johnson about Aparece’s stolen car and her status at the time as a missing person. After reading Johnson his Miranda warnings, which Johnson acknowledged both orally and in writing he understood, the detectives questioned him for over four hours. At trial, the State presented the first hour and twenty-eight minutes of this recorded statement. During this admitted portion of the statement, Johnson denied having robbed anybody, and denied all knowledge of the stolen vehicle or Aparece. However, Johnson did eventually admit that he might have picked up Aparece’s credit card and made purchases without permission after two unknown black men dropped the card on the ground. After the first hour and twenty-eight minutes, Johnson told Detective Hargrave that he wanted to return to his cell because “it seem[ed] like [the officers were] . . . trying to pin this stuff on [him].” Detective Hargrave disputed the contention that they were trying to charge him with credit card abuse, and Johnson continued to speak with the detectives for approximately two and a half more hours. During that time Johnson admitted that he, Fields, Randle, and the Ervins robbed Aparece of her car, but maintained that they left her and Ngo standing on the street unharmed. He also described several other extraneous robberies that were committed around that same time. After several hours, Detective Hargrave expressed his intention to end the interview, but indicated that he still did not believe Johnson had told him everything. He explained 4 Case: 14-70024 Document: 00513104009 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/02/2015 No. 14-70024 that the police could not make any deals for Johnson, but if Johnson desired any leniency from the District Attorney’s Office, he needed to come forward with “complete disclosure.” The following exchange then occurred: Johnson: [interrupting] I’m trying, I’m trying, I’m trying to be right, I’m trying to be right here to tell you all I know. That’s all I know right now. I don’t even want to talk no more until I get me a lawyer or something. Because I, I, I keep on telling ya’ll, I done told ya’ll everything. I wouldn’t have given you all them names if I didn’t know everything I knew. I’m not, I’m not no rat, no little snitch like that. I done told y’all everything I knew though. That’s everything right there. I’m not going to, come on now. Campbell: What do you mean by that? Johnson: [interrupting] that’s a snitch though. [Campbell and Johnson both inaudible because they are talking simultaneously] Johnson: [beginning inaudible] I gave up my brother. I told ‘em what he did and I know he didn’t kill her. He was in the car with me. Louis [was] in the car with me. We drove out. Hargrave: Yeah. Johnson: I told you everything that I know, sir. Hargrave: Yes, but you also told us that you didn’t take anyone away from the situation. You did. So someone - Johnson: [inaudible because he interrupted Hargrave] So 5 Case: 14-70024 Document: 00513104009 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/02/2015 No. 14-70024 you say I took someone away? Hargrave: Huh? Johnson: So you saying I took someone away? Hargrave: You and your crew. Johnson: I didn’t take nobody away. Following a few more questions about the inconsistencies of his statement, Detective Hargrave stopped talking to Johnson. A police officer from Humble, Texas, then entered and asked Johnson questions related to offenses committed in Humble. A few minutes later the interview ended.
After officers from the Houston Police Department (HPD) arrested Timothy Randle and another friend named Alvie Butler on June 23, 2006, Randle led police to the bodies of Aparece and Ngo. In addition to Randle, HPD homicide investigators spoke with Louis Ervin, Ashley Ervin, and another friend named Tanaisha Samuel that same day. Later in the evening, Johnson was brought from jail to be interviewed about his version of the events. Although detectives had a copy of Johnson’s previous statement to Fort Bend County detectives, HPD homicide detective Clement Abbondondalo recorded another interview with Johnson in which he gave more details about the events of June 18th and 19th. Before he questioned Johnson, Abbondondalo read Johnson the required warnings, and Johnson indicated he understood the warnings when he agreed to speak with the detective. In the statement, Johnson blamed Timothy Randle for getting him and Keithron Fields involved in the case. He admitted to initially ordering Aparece and Ngo out of the car with a shotgun and to driving Aparece’s blue Matrix to a wooded area, but claimed Randle was the one who directed them to the crime scene. Johnson also admitted to raping Aparece and to wiping down the car with Fields in order to destroy any fingerprints, but denied killing the couple. 6 Case: 14-70024 Document: 00513104009 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/02/2015 No. 14-70024 He claimed that he fired a pistol near Ngo “just to scare them” and doubted the shot hit anyone, but admitted if he “shot somebody it might would have been the boy.” After they had been talking for about twenty-five minutes, Detective Abbondondalo stepped out of the room. When he returned, Johnson chose to terminate the interview. 3. Pre-trial Hearings on Johnson’s Motions to Suppress Prior to trial, counsel for Johnson filed motions to suppress both of his statements made to police, and the trial court conducted a separate hearing for each statement. At the first hearing, several witnesses were called to testify about the facts and circumstances surrounding the recording of the first statement, including Detective Hargrave. At the conclusion of the hearing, defense counsel objected that the statement was the fruit of an illegal arrest, that Johnson was not timely magistrated and read his warning on the misdemeanor marijuana possession charge, and that his right to silence was violated after the detectives continued to interrogate him once he invoked his right to counsel around the one-hour, twenty-eight minute mark of the first interview. The court denied the motion to suppress the first hour and twentyeight minutes of the statement, but did not address counsel’s objections to the remainder of the statement because the State did not intend to offer it. The following day the court held a hearing concerning Johnson’s second statement. HPD Detective Abbondondalo testified that Johnson understood the warnings read to him and agreed to speak to detectives, that Johnson was not threatened or coerced, and that Johnson neither expressed reluctance to talk about the offense nor requested an attorney at any point. At the conclusion of the hearing, defense counsel contended the statement should be suppressed because Johnson unambiguously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel during his first recorded statement, thereby tainting the second statement. Although agreeing with counsel that Johnson 7 Case: 14-70024 Document: 00513104009 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/02/2015 No. 14-70024 unambiguously invoked his right to silence and to counsel, the court held that Johnson subsequently waived those rights when he continued to discuss the crime after this invocation.