Opinion ID: 2345444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Statutory Aggravating Circumstance Properly Found

Text: In Johnson's case, the State alleged one statutory aggravator: that Shannon Johnson was previously convicted of a felony involving the use of force or violence upon another person. [105] In 2003, Johnson was convicted of Rape in the Fourth Degree. [106] Johnson now argues that it is not clear that a Rape 4th conviction is adequate, in itself, to satisfy the force element of § 4209(e)(1)(i). The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a statutory aggravating circumstance exists. [107] The State submitted the aggravating circumstance that Johnson had been previously convicted of a felony involving the use of, or threat of, force or violence upon another person. [108] That aggravator is not limited to those offenses that have a statutory element of force or violence, [109] but also encompasses prior felonies that actually involved force or violence. Therefore, if that felony may be proven with or without proof of violence or force, the State must establish the facts underlying the prior felony. Johnson was charged with Rape in the Second Degree. He later entered a plea of guilty to a charge of Rape in the Fourth Degree. [110] To prove the violent nature of Johnson's prior conviction for the offense of Rape in the Fourth Degree, the State called the victim of that offense, Q.T., during the penalty phase of Johnson's trial. Q.T. related the underlying facts that led to Johnson's rape conviction. The State also called the investigating police officer, Detective Hall. The State also introduced Q.T.'s medical records, Johnson's plea paperwork and the certified copy of conviction. The jury was properly instructed that it was required to find beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that Johnson was previously convicted of a felony, Rape in the Fourth Degree, and (2) that that felony involved the use of, or threat of, force or violence upon another person. The jury made that factual finding. The standard of review in assessing an insufficiency of evidence claim is whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find [a] defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [111] The jury is the sole fact-finder with responsibility for determining the witnesses' credibility, for resolving conflicts in the testimony, and for drawing any inferences from the proven facts. [112] In Johnson's case, the issue was whether Johnson was guilty of committing a prior felony that involved the use of force. The penalty hearing evidence established that Johnson directed force towards Q.T. when he sexually assaulted her. In addition to Q.T.'s testimony and that of the detective who investigated this rape, the State offered Q.T.'s medical records and certified court documents related to Johnson's guilty plea and sentence. According to the testimony of Q.T., Johnson's rape involved restraint and pinning her arms as she struggled to keep him away. Q.T. also testified that Johnson then forcibly penetrated her against her will. Accordingly, we hold that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the force element of the one statutory aggravating circumstance that it alleged.