Court Opinion

ID: 9897435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:11:31.648574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:46.477498
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                Apr 03 2023, 8:31 am

                                                                                    CLERK
                                                                                Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                   Court of Appeals
                                                                                     and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Christopher Taylor-Price                                        Theodore E. Rokita
Marion County Public Defender Agency                            Attorney General of Indiana
Appellate Division                                              Evan M. Comer
Indianapolis, Indiana                                           Deputy Attorney General
                                                                Indianapolis, Indiana

                                                IN THE
        COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Keesha R. Johnson,                                              April 3, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                            Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                                22A-CR-427
        v.                                                      Appeal from the Marion Superior
                                                                Court
State of Indiana,                                               The Honorable Elizabeth Christ,
Appellee-Plaintiff.                                             Judge
                                                                The Honorable Ronnie Huerta,
                                                                Magistrate
                                                                Trial Court Cause No.
                                                                49D24-1902-F6-7259

                             Opinion on Rehearing by Judge Mathias
                                 Judges Robb and Vaidik concur.

Mathias, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 22A-CR-427 | April 3, 2023                           Page 1 of 4
[1]   In this case, we concluded that Keesha R. Johnson’s Sixth Amendment right to

      confrontation had been violated but that the error was harmless. Johnson has filed a

      petition for rehearing and argues that our court applied the incorrect harmless error

      standard of review. She further claims that the violation of her confrontation rights

      was not harmless error.

[2]   In our opinion, we cited to Koenig v. State, in which our supreme court “reaffirmed

      the principle that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the

      reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional

      error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” 933 N.E.2d 1271, 1273 (Ind. 2010)

      (citations omitted). And, when considering whether a constitutional error was

      harmless, we may consider, among other things:

              the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case,
              whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of
              evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on
              material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted
              and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.

      Id. (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986)).

[3]   Although we cited Koenig, we did not specifically set forth the standard of review

      quoted above in our prior opinion. Johnson v. State, 201 N.E.3d 1198, 1201 n.3 (Ind.

      Ct. App. 2023). Moreover, in our consideration of Johnson’s confrontation claim

      under the Indiana Constitution, we also cited to Torres v. State, 673 N.E.2d 472, 474

      n.1 (Ind. 1996), in which our Supreme Court explained that, as with federal

      constitutional error, the proper standard of review for harmless error analyses of

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 22A-CR-427 | April 3, 2023   Page 2 of 4
      violations of Indiana constitutional rights is whether the error was harmless beyond a

      reasonable doubt.

[4]   Johnson correctly observes that our opinion did not explicitly state that the violations

      of her Sixth Amendment and Article 1, Section 13 confrontation rights were

      considered under the appropriate standard of review. We therefore grant her petition

      for rehearing to clarify our opinion and expressly apply the harmless error analyses

      described in Koenig and Torres.

[5]   In our opinion, we observed that “the witnesses testified in open court in Johnson’s

      presence, the jury was able to observe their demeanor and body language, and

      because the witnesses were subject to cross-examination[.]” Johnson, 201 N.E.3d at

      1207. We also explained, “Johnson admitted that she fired her gun twice. At least

      one shot was fired over Shanetra’s head. Both bullets penetrated the walls of the

      neighboring home. Johnson’s own testimony is sufficient to sustain her conviction

      for criminal recklessness.” Id. at 1207 (citing Ind. Code § 35-42-2-2 (“A person who

      recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally performs an act that creates a substantial risk

      of bodily injury to another person commits criminal recklessness.”). Johnson claimed

      that firing the second shot was accidental and Shanetra’s testimony was used to rebut

      that claim. But Johnson’s act of intentionally firing the first shot is sufficient to

      sustain her criminal recklessness conviction and is relevant to a harmless error

      analysis.

[6]   In addition, much of Johnson’s and Shanetra’s testimonies were consistent. Shanetra

      stated that she was on Johnson’s property without Johnson’s permission, and from

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 22A-CR-427 | April 3, 2023   Page 3 of 4
      their testimonies it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that Johnson was

      surprised by Shanetra’s presence. Their testimonies diverged when each testified

      when Johnson realized Shanetra was the individual on her property: was it before or

      after Johnson fired her gun? However, there was no dispute that the bullets from

      both shots penetrated the walls of the neighboring home occupied by Carl and

      Angela Hawkins.

[7]   Finally, in its closing argument, the State relied heavily on Johnson’s testimony at

      trial and her statements to the investigating police officer. In response to Johnson’s

      claim that she was defending her property, the State argued Johnson used

      unreasonable force when she shot her gun in response to an individual rummaging

      through the van parked on Johnson’s property.

[8]   The masked witnesses were subject to cross-examination in Johnson’s presence and

      the State had a strong case against Johnson. We therefore conclude that the federal

      and state constitutional errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Robb, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 22A-CR-427 | April 3, 2023   Page 4 of 4