DUBUQUE, Iowa – On August 6, 2025, the Iowa Court of Appeals upheld the convictions of Aaron C. Johnson for first-degree murder and first-degree robbery in a case stemming from a fatal shooting in Dubuque in February 2023. The decision, filed under case number 24-0336, rejected Johnson’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct and errors in jury instructions, affirming the ruling of the Dubuque County District Court.

C

The case revolves around a planned robbery targeting Lonnie Burns, a Dubuque resident believed to possess large quantities of marijuana and cash. According to court documents, Jermaine Bolds, who was living with Tiarha Godwin and her family, orchestrated the scheme with Laniga Hannon. The group, which included Johnson, Kenneth Reed, and Terry Valrie, planned to use Godwin, a 16-year-old, to lure Burns into a vulnerable position by arranging a meeting under the pretense of exchanging sexual favors for drugs and money. The group intended to threaten Burns with police involvement for engaging with a minor unless he surrendered his valuables.

On February 6, 2023, the group executed their plan. After Godwin entered Burns’s home, the others, wearing ski masks, approached but were rebuffed when Burns refused to open his door. A confrontation ensued, during which Johnson allegedly shot Burns three times as Burns attempted to retreat. Burns was found unresponsive by police, and despite medical efforts, he was pronounced dead at a local hospital. Johnson was arrested in Chicago on February 23, 2023, and charged with first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and felon in possession of a firearm.

Following a jury trial from November 28 to December 5, 2023, Johnson was found guilty on all counts. His motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were denied by the district court, prompting his appeal.

Appeal Arguments and Court Findings

Johnson’s appeal centered on two primary claims: prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and the district court’s refusal to provide a jury instruction on extortion, which he argued was central to his defense.

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Johnson alleged that the prosecutor made inflammatory statements, including accusing defense counsel of “gaslighting” the jury and implying dishonesty. The “gaslighting” comment arose when the prosecutor suggested that defense arguments lacked evidentiary support, stating, “There’s also a term out there, it’s called gaslighting. That’s what you just heard from [defense counsel].” Johnson’s counsel objected but did not move for a mistrial at the time. The court found that the prosecutor’s clarification—that the defense’s claims were unsupported by evidence—negated any misconduct, as it directed the jury to focus on the evidence presented.

Another issue involved a trial exchange where the prosecutor disputed defense counsel’s claim that entire jail phone call recordings were in evidence, saying, “That’s not true.” Johnson argued this implied dishonesty, but the court interpreted it as an attempt to clarify the record, not an attack on counsel’s integrity. The court also noted that Johnson failed to preserve error on other alleged misconduct claims by not objecting or moving for a mistrial during closing arguments, as required under Iowa law.

The appeals court concluded that no prosecutorial misconduct occurred, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of a new trial.

Jury Instruction on Extortion

Johnson argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on extortion, which he claimed was his theory of defense. He contended that the group’s plan to threaten Burns with police action constituted extortion rather than robbery. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that extortion and robbery are not mutually exclusive crimes. Instructing the jury on an uncharged crime like extortion could have confused or misled jurors, as it would not preclude a robbery conviction. The court emphasized that Johnson was still able to present his extortion theory during the trial, as evidenced by testimony about the group’s plan, but the lack of a specific instruction did not violate his right to a complete defense.

Conclusion

The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed Johnson’s convictions, finding no merit in his claims of prosecutorial misconduct or instructional error. The decision underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring trials are decided based on evidence and proper legal standards, even in cases involving complex criminal schemes and tragic outcomes.

Johnson was represented by Christopher A. Kragnes of Kragnes & Associates, PC, Des Moines. The State was represented by Attorney General Brenna Bird and Assistant Attorney General Genevieve Reinkoester. The case was considered without oral argument by Presiding Judge Ahlers, Judge Buller, and Senior Judge Telleen.