The Louisiana Court of Appeal has affirmed the convictions of Donald Dewayne White, II, for two counts of second-degree murder and one count of attempted second-degree murder. The court ruled on August 26, 2026, that White's trial was conducted fairly and that his rights were not violated during the proceedings. This ruling is significant as it highlights issues surrounding self-representation and the admissibility of evidence in serious criminal cases.
White was convicted for the murders of Jasmine Johnson and her mother, Joan Johnson, as well as the attempted murder of Jasmine's father, John Johnson. The case has garnered attention due to the violent nature of the crimes and the complexities involved in White's defense, particularly regarding his mental health and legal representation.
Background
The case began on January 14, 2024, when police responded to a report of multiple shootings at a residence in Shreveport, Louisiana. Upon arrival, officers found Jasmine Johnson and her mother, Joan, dead from gunshot wounds, while John Johnson was injured but able to identify White as the shooter. White had been in a tumultuous relationship with Jasmine, and the couple had three young children together.
Following the incident, White was taken into custody and confessed to the shootings during a police interview. His defense argued that he should not have been allowed to represent himself during the trial, citing his mental health issues and lack of medication at the time. The trial court had previously determined that White was competent to stand trial, despite his claims of mental illness.
The Ruling
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, presided over by Judge Stephens, upheld White's convictions, stating that the trial court did not err in allowing him to represent himself. The court noted, "The record shows that White’s trial proceeded in an orderly fashion notwithstanding his emotional breakdown while he was cross-examining John Johnson." The judges emphasized that White had been informed of the dangers of self-representation and had made a knowing decision to waive his right to counsel.
Additionally, the court addressed the issue of hearsay evidence regarding prior domestic violence incidents involving White and Jasmine Johnson. The court ruled that the testimony was admissible under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, which allows for the admission of statements made by a victim who is unavailable due to the defendant's actions. The court stated, "The link between the defendant’s actions and the victim’s unavailability may be established when a defendant puts forward to a witness the idea to avoid testifying."
Impact
This ruling reinforces the legal standards surrounding self-representation in criminal trials and the admissibility of hearsay evidence when a victim is unavailable. It clarifies that a defendant's ability to represent themselves does not necessarily correlate with their mental health status at the time of the trial. The decision also highlights the court's discretion in determining the competency of a defendant to waive their right to counsel.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond White's case, potentially affecting future cases involving defendants with mental health issues who choose to represent themselves. It emphasizes the importance of thorough evaluations of a defendant's mental state and the need for clear communication regarding the risks associated with self-representation.
What's Next
White has the option to appeal the ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court, although it is unclear whether he will pursue this course of action. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further legal actions.