Martin Allen Johnson

Parties

• Martin Allen Johnson (defendant)
• Heather Fay Fraser, 15 (victim)

Timeline

• 1997 — Police discovered information that led them to a minor female who disclosed that she had had sexual intercourse with defendant in Clackamas County in 1997.
• April 1998 — A Clackamas County grand jury indicted defendant on one count of rape in the third degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the third degree.
• A few days later (after April 1998 indictment) — A warrant for defendant's arrest issued but was not served because defendant was no longer in the state.
• Nearly two years later (February 1999) — Defendant was arrested in Florida.
• Within days (after arrest in Florida in February 1999) — Washington County issued a warrant for defendant's arrest on the aggravated murder charges pending in that county.
• March 4, 1999 — Defendant was returned to Oregon.
• More than 20 months after March 4, 1999 — Clackamas County had taken no action to pursue the charges pending against defendant in that county.
• November 2000 — Defendant learned inadvertently from Washington County jail officials that Clackamas County had placed a hold on him, which caused him to learn of the Clackamas County charges.
• December 20, 2000 — Defendant was served with an arrest warrant on the Clackamas County charges and arraigned the following day.
• February 9, 2001 — Trial on the Clackamas County charges was initially scheduled.
• August 21, 2001 — Defendant was sentenced to death.
• January 29, 2004 — The case was argued and submitted.
• April 28, 2004 — The appeal record was filed in the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon.
• 2004 — The judgment of conviction was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice.

Background

Just over a year before the victim's body was found, 15-year-old Heather Fraser disappeared. Her body was found and recovered in the Columbia River near Warrenton, Oregon on the following day.

Defendant Martin Johnson became a “person of interest” in a homicide investigation in Washington County in early 1998. He fled the state after his home was searched in connection with that investigation.

The offence

Police discovered information during the homicide investigation that led them to a minor female who disclosed that she had had sexual intercourse with defendant in Clackamas County in 1997.

Defendant was indicted in Clackamas County on:

• one count of rape in the third degree (ORS 163.355)
• two counts of sexual abuse in the third degree

The case on appeal involved defendant’s conviction for rape in the third degree under ORS 163.355.

Investigation and arrest

In the course of the homicide investigation, information led police to a minor female who disclosed sexual intercourse with defendant in Clackamas County in 1997. As a result, the Clackamas County grand jury indicted defendant in April 1998.

A warrant for defendant's arrest issued a few days later but was not served because defendant was no longer in the state.

Meanwhile, defendant was indicted in Washington County on an unrelated charge of aggravated murder.

In February 1999, defendant was arrested in Florida. Within days, Washington County issued a warrant for defendant's arrest on the aggravated murder charges. Defendant waived extradition and was returned to Washington County. On March 4, 1999, defendant was returned to Oregon.

A “hold” was placed on defendant by Clackamas County, but defendant was not served with the Clackamas County arrest warrant.

Defendant’s death row placement was referenced in the material: “Martin Allen Johnson in death row.”

Trial

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for rape in the third degree (ORS 163.355), challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds.

Defendant moved to dismiss on both constitutional and statutory speedy trial grounds. The trial court denied the motion, concluding:

• The delay between indictment and service of the warrant was “attributable to the defendant's absence from the State of Oregon.”
• Once defendant was returned to Oregon and requested a speedy trial, he was promptly “served with the arrest warrant and arraigned.”
• Further delays in prosecution were “at the request of the defendant in order to prepare the case.”

The appellate challenge focused only on the trial court’s ruling on defendant’s statutory right to speedy trial.

Trial on the Clackamas County charges was initially scheduled for February 9, 2001, and the date was postponed several times:

• On defendant’s motion or that of his attorney (during times that defendant was represented).
• Defendant waived his speedy trial rights for purposes of postponements occurring after the scheduled trial date.
• Defendant preserved speedy trial rights as to the state's delay between the time defendant was returned to Oregon custody and the time Clackamas County served its arrest warrant and arraigned him.

Sentencing

Defendant was sentenced to death on August 21, 2001.

Appeals

Court and case details

• Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon
• State of Oregon, Respondent, v. Martin Allen Johnson, Appellant
• 9800590; A116313
• Appeal from Circuit Court, Clackamas County
• Raymond R. Bagley, Judge
• Argued and submitted January 29, 2004
• Susan F. Drake, Deputy Public Defender argued the cause for appellant.
• David E. Groom, Acting Executive Director, Office of Public Defense Services, and Mary M. Reese, Senior Deputy Public Defender were on the brief for appellant.
• Martin Allen Johnson filed a pro se supplemental appellant’s brief.
• Paul L. Smith, Assistant Attorney General argued the cause for respondent.
• Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General were on the brief for respondent.
• Panel: Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Ortega, Judges.

Appellate decision

LINDER, J. — Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice.

The appellate court concluded the motion should have been granted under ORS 135.747, because defendant neither caused nor consented to the delay in his prosecution and because the length of the delay was unreasonable. The court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment of dismissal without prejudice.

Statutory framework (as applied by the court)

The statute quoted by the court was:

“If a defendant charged with a crime, whose trial has not been postponed upon the application of the defendant or by the consent of the defendant, is not brought to trial within a reasonable period of time, the court shall order the accusatory instrument to be dismissed.”

The court applied factors for reasonableness, including:

• nature of the charges
• length of delay
• the state’s explanation or lack of explanation for failing to bring the case to trial

Findings on consent or causation of delay

The court addressed the state’s argument that defendant impliedly consented by “elect[ing] to wait 20 months” before requesting a speedy trial.

The court identified two problems with the state’s argument:

• The record did not establish that defendant knew of the Clackamas County charges.
• As a legal matter, implied consent did not arise from the mere failure to insist on trial.

The court stated:

“The law imposes no duty on a defendant, charged with a crime, of calling his case for trial or insisting that it be set for trial at any particular time. That duty devolves upon the state.”

Reasonableness of the delay

The appellate court concluded the delay was unreasonable, emphasizing:

• the state offered no explanation for failing to take steps to bring the case to trial in Clackamas County
• once defendant requested a speedy trial, the state responded within less than a month by serving the outstanding arrest warrant and arraigning him the next day
• the delay was “more than 20 months” and defendant neither caused nor consented to it

Result

• The judgment of conviction was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice.

Outcome

The appellate court ordered dismissal without prejudice as instructed on remand.

Other details

• The material included: “Filed: April 28, 2004 in the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon.”
• The material included: “Heather Fay Fraser, 15, the victim.”
• The material included: “home last updates contact,” which did not state a case fact.