State v. Johnson

── State v. Johnson ── Case No.: 1 CA-CR 24-0642 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 25, 2026 Category: General IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. XAVIER JOHNSON, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 24-0642 FILED 03-25-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2024-109729-001 The Honorable Margaret LaBianca, Judge VACATED AND REMANDED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Deborah Celeste Kinney Counsel for Appellee Law Office of Randal B. McDonald, Phoenix By Randal McDonald Counsel for Appellant OPINION Presiding Judge David B. Gass delivered the opinion of the court, in which Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Andrew J. Becke joined.  STATE v. JOHNSON Opinion of the Court G A S S, Judge: ¶1 Defendant Xavier Johnson appeals his three convictions and sentences for aggravated assault, unlawful imprisonment, and assault. All three were alleged as domestic violence offenses. He seeks reversal on three grounds. First, Johnson argues the superior court erred when it admitted hearsay statements from an emergency room doctor, a forensic nurse examiner, and the case agent in violation of Rule 803(4), Arizona Rules of Evidence (“Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment”) and the Confrontation Clause. See State v. Rushton, 172 Ariz. 454, 456 (App. 1992). Second, Johnson argues the superior court should have empaneled a twelve-person jury. Third, Johnson argues insufficient evidence supports his convictions. ¶2 Because the admission of the forensic examiner’s testimony about the alleged offenses based on the victim’s statements violated Johnson’s Confrontation Clause rights, the court vacates all three convictions and sentences and remands to the superior court for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 The court views the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s verdict, resolving all inferences against Johnson. See State v. Reaves, 252 Ariz. 553, 558 ¶ 2 (App. 2022). Because the victim did not testify, all the testimony and evidence came from other witnesses. ¶4 The victim was Johnson’s girlfriend. For several days, the victim stayed at Johnson’s extended-stay motel residence. The victim’s daughters became concerned when the victim did not respond to calls and texts. One of them went to where Johnson was staying and knocked on the door. Before Johnson opened the door, the daughter heard what sounded like someone wrestling to turn the doorknob. When Johnson finally opened the door, he prevented the victim from leaving for several minutes. Eventually, the victim pushed past Johnson and left with her daughter, who took the victim to the hospital. I. The victim made statements to a doctor at the hospital for medical treatment. ¶5 The victim told the examining doctor, who later testified at trial, she was there because she had a cut above her left eye near her eyebrow. During the physical examination, the doctor also noted her left eye was swollen and bruised. 2  STATE v. JOHNSON Opinion of the Court ¶6 The doctor asked the victim how her injuries occurred. She told the doctor “she had been struck by her boyfriend a couple of days before and that he wouldn’t let her get medical care until that time.” The victim told the doctor she had contacted the police and was at the hospital “seeking medical care.” During his testimony, the doctor mentioned nothing about strangulation. ¶7 Based on the examination, the doctor did not order any testing or imaging. Because the cut was more than 24 ho