## Facts

- Arnold E. Johnson was tried for capital murder arising from the robbery-murder of Frank Johnson, Jr.
- A key prosecution witness, Reginald Taylor, gave police a written, signed statement shortly after the offense that implicated Johnson.
- At trial, Taylor acknowledged his signature but testified he could not remember the statement’s contents or the underlying events.
- Over objection, the trial court allowed Taylor’s written statement to be read to the jury as a recorded recollection.
- The statement was especially damaging because it implicated Johnson in the charged offense and also referenced another killing and a directive to “shoot him in the head.”
- The State also introduced evidence connecting Johnson to the earlier murder of Olivia Drummond, even though Johnson had previously been tried and acquitted of that homicide.
- The jury convicted Johnson of capital murder and assessed the death penalty.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence implicating the defendant in a homicide for which he had been acquitted was admissible as an extraneous offense in the capital murder trial.
2. Whether a witness’s prior written statement was admissible as a recorded recollection when the witness could not recall the events and did not affirm the statement’s accuracy or his firsthand knowledge.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held it was error to admit evidence of the Drummond homicide because the defendant had been acquitted of that offense and the evidence was highly prejudicial.
- The court held it was error to admit Taylor’s statement as a recorded recollection because the necessary foundation was not established, including that the witness had firsthand knowledge and that the statement accurately reflected his knowledge when made.
- The errors were not harmless given the State’s reliance on the statement and the prejudicial impact of the acquitted-offense evidence in a death-penalty case.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of an extraneous offense for which the defendant has been acquitted is generally inadmissible and carries an unusually high risk of unfair prejudice.
- Recorded recollection requires proof that: (a) the witness once had knowledge, (b) the witness now cannot recall well enough to testify fully, (c) the record was made or adopted while the matter was fresh, and (d) the record accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.
- A signed statement is insufficient for recorded recollection absent testimony establishing the witness’s firsthand knowledge and that the statement was accurate when made.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the capital murder conviction and death sentence because the jury heard (1) extraneous-offense evidence tied to a prior acquittal and (2) a key witness’s written statement admitted without the required recorded-recollection foundation, errors that materially affected the trial’s fairness.


Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)