Johns v. State

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Don Wesley Johns’s first-degree murder conviction and sentence for killing his roommate. The court held that alleged errors in self-defense instructions, the sudden-heat-of-passion instruction, the stepped verdict form, and the definition of recklessness did not constitute reversible plain error, principally because Johns failed to show prejudice and the evidence did not support his asserted defenses.

Holdings

1. Johns failed to establish plain error from the self-defense instructions because he did not present a prima facie case of self-defense. The evidence did not support findings that Wickersham was the aggressor, that Johns reasonably believed he faced imminent death or serious bodily harm, or that no reasonable alternative existed.
2. The voluntary-manslaughter instruction was legally deficient under Shull because it did not inform the jury that the State had to disprove sudden heat of passion, but Johns failed to establish plain error because the instructional error was trial error and he could not show material prejudice.
3. The stepped verdict form did not constitute plain error because Johns failed to show prejudice. He did not argue sudden heat of passion or present evidence supporting voluntary manslaughter, so a different verdict form would not have changed the result.
4. The district court did not commit reversible plain error by failing to define recklessness or enhanced recklessness because the jury convicted Johns of first-degree murder and therefore never considered the second-degree-murder instructions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court improperly instructed the jury regarding self-defense and the duty to retreat.
2. Whether the district court improperly instructed the jury regarding the State's burden of proof concerning sudden heat of passion as an element of voluntary manslaughter.
3. Whether the stepped verdict form improperly prevented the jury from considering sudden heat of passion as a mitigating circumstance before considering greater offenses.
4. Whether the district court plainly erred by failing to define recklessness or enhanced recklessness in the instruction defining malice for second-degree murder.

Disposition

affirmed