The Idaho Supreme Court has upheld Sarah Johnson's convictions of killing her parents in 2003.
In a 14-page ruling released Thursday, the high court upheld Johnson's 2005 convictions in 5th District Court. Johnson was convicted in the shooting deaths of her parents, Alan and Diane Johnson, at the couple's home in Bellevue on Sept 3, 2003. Now 21, Johnson was 16 at the time.
"We're pleased with the ruling," Blaine County Sheriff Walt Femling told the Idaho Mountain Express. "I've known all along that this case was investigated well and prosecuted well. We were confident that this would be upheld and affirmed, and that's certainly what happened today.
"We've just lived this case for almost five years now and I just hope that this is the final chapter and we can move on," Femling said. "We're just tired of reliving this case. Hopefully, it's over.
"I've never been involved in a case that was more scrutinized than this one," Femling added, referring to the extensive national news media coverage that the Johnson case has received.
Johnson is currently serving two life prison sentences without the possibility of parole at the Pocatello Women's Correctional Facility.
Johnson still has legal avenues to seek a new trial or have her convictions overturned. Her case could be appealed to federal court and she still has a post-conviction relief petition that has yet to be heard in Blaine County. In the petition, which was put on hold pending the outcome of the Idaho Supreme Court appeal, Johnson alleged that she had ineffective legal counsel during her trial and that presiding Judge Barry Wood was biased against her.
The high court justices were unanimous in upholding Johnson's lower court convictions in a ruling authored by Vice Chief Justice Roger S. Burdick.
The justices ruled that Wood did not violate Johnson's right to due process when he instructed the jury that the defendant could be found guilty of the murders even if she wasn't the one who pulled the trigger.
Johnson, through attorneys with the State Public Defender's Office, had contended that she was never charged with "aiding and abetting" the crime and was thus unprepared during the trial to argue against the accusation.
But Burdick wrote: "In Idaho there is no distinction between principals and aiders and abettors, and it is unnecessary the charging documents allege any facts other than what is necessary to convict a principal." The vice chief justice further wrote that "Idaho has abolished the distinction between principals and aiders and abettors."
The justices also determined that it was unnecessary for Wood to poll the jury to determine if Johnson was found guilty as a principal or as an aider and abettor.
"We conclude it is unnecessary to instruct the jury that it must be unanimous as to the theoretical basis for committing the offense because aiding and abetting is not a separate offense from the substantive crime," Burdick wrote.
The justices further determined that Johnson waived her right during the trial to object to juror No. 85 being impaneled. Johnson's attorneys had contended that the juror should have been removed from the panel because he indicated prior to impaneling that he might not be able to follow the judge's instructions regarding consideration of evidence.
"The record does not show the judge acted erroneously in allowing juror 85 to remain on the panel," Burdick wrote.
Attorneys for the State Public Defender's Office could not be reached for comment Thursday.
Bob Cooper, a spokesman for the Idaho Attorney General's Office, which argued the state's case in the appeal, said, "We are pleased with the decision."
Blaine County Prosecuting Attorney Jim Thomas, who prosecuted the Johnson case, was also pleased.
"This is one step closer to bringing closure to the friends and family of Alan and Diane in what is a very tragic chapter in Blaine County's history," Thomas said.
Sarah Johnson
