Opinion
No. 109,974.
2014-08-28
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Sean JOHNSON, Appellant.
First, of course, Johnson lived near the victim, and his house was chockfull of the property she reported stolen. Second, Shawn Patrick told police he had helped Johnson enter the victim's home and steal the property. He so testified at Johnson's trial. Finally, as Judge Leben explains, Johnson offered a preposterous explanation to police about how he came to have the victim's property—a tale the State presented to the jury. By Johnson's account, he bought some of the items from a guy on the street, Patrick brought some of the property into his house, another friend also did so, and yet a fourth individual planted some of the property in his house to cause him problems. So Johnson was either a burglar or had the extraordinary misfortune to have been the unwitting recipient of the victim's property from a quartet of unconnected individuals acting out of exceptionally diverse motives. And Johnson's version left wholly unexplained his possession of the victim's checkbook and papers addressed to her. The State's rebuttal testimony amounted to a few candy sprinkles on top of a three-layer prosecution cake. The jurors, primed by common sense and a fair view of each side's case-in-chief, opted to convict Johnson. Had the rebuttal evidence been kept out, the result would have been the same. So I have no hesitance in affirming the verdicts.