v. Johnson

Summary

The court held that a defendant may present truthful but potentially incomplete evidence without opening the door to previously suppressed evidence. Because Johnson’s proposed evidence concerning Carrethers’s positive gunshot-residue test was truthful and supported his alternate-suspect theory, the trial court erred by conditioning its admission on allowing the prosecution to introduce Johnson’s suppressed test results. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, so the court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment reversing Johnson’s conviction and remanding for a new trial.