## Facts

- Nicholas L. Johnson was charged by bill of information with armed robbery under La. R.S. 14:64 and, after a jury trial, was convicted and sentenced to eight years at hard labor.
- The prosecution’s case relied on one eyewitness, grocery store employee Edna Burke, who described an armed robbery lasting under two minutes and later identified Johnson as the robber.
- About a month after the robbery, Burke saw Johnson in the store, identified him, and unsuccessfully attempted to have the manager detain him; she saw him return on later occasions.
- On April 23, 1979, after a prearranged signal, the manager followed Johnson and police detained him; Burke identified him at the scene, and he was arrested.
- The defense called character witness Roy Lee Jarrell, who testified that Johnson was honest and that he had never heard of Johnson stealing.
- Johnson testified and stated he had not been convicted of crimes involving dishonesty, violence, or carrying/possessing a gun.
- On cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned Jarrell with hypothetical questions referencing Johnson’s alleged prior arrests and a prior guilty plea.
- The prosecutor also questioned Johnson about prior arrests and details of a weapons charge that had been dismissed; defense counsel did not object during this portion of cross-examination.
- On appeal, Johnson primarily challenged the propriety of the cross-examination concerning prior arrests and criminal history, not the sufficiency of the evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecutor improperly cross-examined the defense character witness by referencing Johnson’s prior arrests and a prior guilty plea, and whether any error was preserved for appellate review.
2. Whether the prosecutor improperly cross-examined Johnson about prior arrests and a dismissed weapons charge, and whether the lack of a contemporaneous objection barred review.
3. What limits and safeguards should govern cross-examination of defendants and character witnesses regarding arrests or unadjudicated misconduct.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court characterized portions of the prosecutor’s questioning about prior arrests and criminal history as objectionable.
- The court held that relief was unavailable because Johnson failed to properly present the alleged errors for review under preservation rules, including contemporaneous objection requirements.
- The court announced that the abuses shown in the record warranted safeguards for future cases concerning such cross-examination.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate relief for improper questioning generally requires a timely, contemporaneous, and sufficiently specific objection; failure to preserve error can bar review even where questioning is improper.
- Cross-examination that injects prior arrests (as opposed to convictions) risks unfair prejudice because arrests do not establish guilt and can suggest unproven criminal conduct to the jury.
- When testing a character witness’s opinion or knowledge, the trial court should exercise strict control to prevent speculative or inflammatory questions and to require a good-faith factual basis.
- Improper use of arrest-based insinuations under the guise of impeaching character testimony may warrant reversal in cases where the defendant properly preserves the issue.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Johnson’s armed robbery conviction because the defense did not preserve alleged evidentiary errors through timely and specific objections, while also warning that arrest-based cross-examination is highly prejudicial and requiring stricter judicial oversight and safeguards in future cases.


State v. Johnson, 389 So. 2d 372 (La. 1980)