USA v. Johnson, No. 07-10432 (5th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 07-10432 Summary Calendar October 16, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAURICE JOHNSON, JR., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 7:06-CR-8-ALL Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Maurice Johnson, Jr., appeals his conviction of distribution of cocaine base, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, and being a felon in possession * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 07-10432 of a firearm and ammunition. He contends the district court erred by denying his motion for mistrial after a witness had made an unsolicited comment indicating that Johnson had been convicted of murder and that the court erred in denying Johnson s motion to suppress his statements to police. The denial of a mistrial was no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dupre, 117 F.3d 810, 823 (5th Cir. 1997). Officer Karl King responded to the question how long he had known Johnson by commenting that he had known Johnson since shortly before Johnson was convicted of murder. The remark was unsolicited, and the court directed the jury to disregard it and later instructed that Johnson was not on trial for any offense not alleged in the indictment and that evidence of other crimes could not be considered for any purpose. A jury is presumed to follow instructions. See United States v. Fields, 483 F.3d 313, 354 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1065 (2008). Moreover, in light of the evidence, there is no significant possibility that King s comment had a substantial impact on the verdict. See United States v. Paul, 142 F.3d 836, 844 (5th Cir. 1998). Johnson contends that his confession was proven to be involuntary, because King answered No, Sir to the question, Any statements that he made, in your opinion, would have been freely, voluntarily and intelligently made on his choice? King s answer, when read in context, was only a misstatement and did not undermine the district court s decision that Johnson s oral statements were admissible. AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
