State v. Johnson

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellant,

v.

CORINTHIAN JERRY JOHNSON, Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0549
FILED 09-25-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2023-001278-001
The Honorable Stasy D. Avelar, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Quinton S. Gregory
Counsel for Appellant

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Grahame McNevin
Counsel for Appellee
 STATE v. JOHNSON
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Vice Chief Judge David D.
Weinzweig joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 The superior court dismissed with prejudice an information
against Corinthian Jerry Johnson, which charged him with (1) possession or
use of narcotic drugs and (2) possession or use of dangerous drugs. The
State appeals the dismissal. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In December 2022, a security guard was patrolling a casino’s
parking garage at around 1:00 a.m. when he noticed Johnson “passed out”
in the front seat of a parked car with a glass pipe in his left hand and a
lighter in his right hand. The guard requested a welfare check on Johnson.
When a police officer arrived, an emergency medical technician (“EMT”)
from the casino advised him that Johnson was breathing but appeared to
be asleep.

¶3 The officer opened the car’s unlocked passenger door and
startled Johnson awake. As the officer helped Johnson step out of the car,
he noticed Johnson “had very ridged [sic] muscle tone ([c]ommonly
observed with persons that have used methamphetamine)” and appeared
to have trouble maintaining his balance.

¶4 The officer arrested Johnson and searched his pockets, finding
a lighter, box cutter, glass tube, and piece of foil. The officer then placed
Johnson in his patrol car and asked Johnson his name, but Johnson refused
to answer and appeared to be incoherent. Suspecting Johnson was
overdosing on fentanyl, the officer contacted the Peoria Fire Department
and asked the EMT to continue monitoring Johnson’s medical condition. In
the meantime, the officer searched Johnson’s vehicle and found a pouch
containing another glass pipe, several blue pills, several empty plastic
baggies with residue, and pieces of foil. In the foil pieces, he found more
blue pills and a white crystalline substance.

2
 STATE v. JOHNSON
Decision of the Court

¶5 When a rescue unit from the Peoria Fire Department arrived,
Johnson was released from custody and transported to a hospital, where he
received treatment for an opioid overdose and was discharged at around
6:00 a.m.

¶6 The State filed an information charging Johnson with Count
1, possession or use of narcotic drugs, and Count 2, possession or use of
dangerous drugs, each a class 4 felony. Johnson moved to dismiss, claiming
he was immune from prosecution under Arizona Revised Statutes
(“A.R.S.”) section 13-3423(B), which states:

A person who experiences a drug-related overdose,
who is in need of medical assistance and for whom medical
assistance is sought . . . may not be charged or prosecuted for
the possession or use of a controlled substance or drug
paraphernalia if the evidence for the violation was gained as
a result of the person’s overdose and need for medical
assistance.

¶7 In response to Johnson’s motion, the State insisted that A.R.S.
§ 13-3423(B) confers immunity only to defendants who are actively
overdosing at the time the evidence supporting their charges is discovered.
The State conceded that Johnson was overdosing by the time he was treated
by the hospital, but it claimed that a question of fact still existed as to
whether Johnson was overdosing during the welfare check. The State
argued that dismissal would therefore be inappropriate without an
evidentiary hearing to determine the timing of Johnson’s overdose.

¶8 After holding oral argument on Johnson’s motion, the
superior court dismissed the case with prejudice. The State moved for
reconsideration, again arguing that the case required an evidentiary
hearing. The court denied the motion, and the State timely appealed. We
have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and
A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 13-4032(1).

DISCUSSION

¶9 On appeal, the State argues that the superior court erred in
dismissing the case without an evidentiary hearing.

¶10 Upon a defendant’s motion, the court must dismiss criminal
charges when an information is insufficient as a matter of law. Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 16.4(b). We generally review a superior court’s grant of a motion
to dismiss for an abuse of discretion. State v. Wood, 198 Ariz. 275, 277, ¶ 6

3
 STATE v. JOHNSON
Decision of the Court

(App. 2000). But when the dismissal “is entirely a matter of statutory
interpretation,” we review it de novo. Id. In addition, “when [a] statute’s
language is plain and unambiguous, we follow the text as written.” State v.
Skiba, 199 Ariz. 539, 541, ¶ 8 (App. 2001) (citation omitted).

¶11 Here, undisputed facts established each element of A.R.S. §
13-3423(B). The police officer discovered Johnson’s drug paraphernalia due
to the security guard’s request for a welfare check. The officer suspected
that Johnson needed medical care for an overdose and sought medical care
accordingly. And Johnson did experience an overdose and did need
medical assistance, as his hospital treatment later confirmed. The State does
not dispute that Johnson’s overdose resulted from drugs he had used by
the time the welfare check was performed. By reiterating its request for an
evidentiary hearing on the timing of Johnson’s overdose, the State asks us
to read into § 13-3423(B) an additional timing requirement regarding the
onset of overdose symptoms, which we will not do. See City of Phoenix v.
Donofrio, 99 Ariz. 130, 133 (1965) (“[C]ourts will not read into a statute
something which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as
gathered from the statute itself.” (citation omitted)).

¶12 The State also urges us to specify which party bears the
burden of proof under A.R.S. § 13-3423(B). Given that the superior court’s
dismissal was based solely on undisputed facts, we need not inquire into
the burden of proof to resolve this case.

CONCLUSION

¶13 We affirm.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4