SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-17-312
STACEY EUGENE JOHNSON Opinion Delivered April 19, 2017
APPELLANT
V. DISSENTING OPINION.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice
I dissent from the majority’s decision today to remand the matter to the circuit court
for a hearing on Johnson’s motion for postconviction DNA testing and to stay Johnson’s
execution. Simply put, Johnson has presented these same arguments regarding testing of
DNA on numerous occasions in the two decades since his conviction for Carol Heath’s
murder. At trial, the testimony established that the DNA pattern found on the hair near Ms.
Heath’s body at the crime scene showed that the DNA in the hair was consistent with
Johnson’s. Testing further showed that the DNA pattern found on the hair would occur
among 1 in every 720 million African-Americans. Also at trial, the saliva on the partially
smoked cigarette found in the pocket of the shirt at the park was also consistent with
Johnson’s DNA, and the shirt contained blood consistent with Ms. Heath’s DNA.
In this case, the majority erroneously interprets Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-
112-201 to include any and all claims presented under this statute. Here, it is clear from the
record that Johnson cannot prevail under this statute. Johnson must demonstrate that “the
Cite as
scientific predicate for the claim could not have been previously discovered through the
exercise of due diligence and the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of
the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that
no reasonable fact-finder would find Johnson guilty of the underlying offense.” Arkansas
Code Annotated § 16-112-201(a)(2)(Repl. 2016). In sum, Johnson cannot prevail.
Accordingly, I dissent.
WOOD and WOMACK, JJ., join.
2 CR-17-312
