Darren Johnson pleads not guilty as prosecutors say video shows pickup striking neighbor

Darren Johnson pleaded not guilty in 180th Judicial District Court in San Antonio to an indictment that alleges he used a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon to injure his neighbor, Mark Wayne Clanton, on Oct. 20, 2023.

Prosecutor Megan Galloway told jurors in opening statements that video and witness testimony will show Johnson parked a white Ford F‑350, moved Clanton’s trash cans and then “accelerate, put her truck up on the curb, collide with the trash bin, and knock Mark Clanton over,” injuries that prosecutors say support counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and injury to an elderly person.

The indictment presented to the court alleges two counts: (1) aggravated assault by use and exhibition of a deadly weapon (a motor vehicle) and (2) causing bodily injury to an individual 65 or older. The court record identifies the case as 2024 CR 2675. At arraignment the defendant entered the plea “Not guilty, your honor.”

Why it matters: prosecutors said the case rests on video, witness statements and medical observations showing Clanton was injured after contact with the truck. Defense counsel told jurors the video and scene show no criminal intent and said initial on-scene officers concluded the neighbor obstructed the vehicle’s passage.

Most of the testimony at the hearing focused on how the police investigation unfolded. Officer Kyle Gapen, who responded to the call the day after the incident, testified he prepared an obstruction-of-highway report after viewing a cell‑phone video and speaking with people on scene: “I generated an obstruction of highway report.” Gapen said, as he and other officers viewed the video at the scene, they concluded the roadway was not rendered impassable but that the immediate scene and statements informed his report.

Detectives who later reviewed the same video reached a different conclusion. Detective David Smith of the San Antonio Police Department’s fusion unit told the court he reviewed the original material and the video the complainant provided and determined the elements for the obstruction charge were not present; the investigation was then forwarded to homicide detectives for further follow up. Detective Smith testified that he “didn’t feel that the elements of the offense for obstructing a passageway were present” and that the case was transferred for additional investigation.

A civilian witness, Aaron Rodriguez, testified he saw the interaction from a nearby property. Rodriguez identified the defendant in court and said the truck went up onto the curb and that he “witnessed the truck hit him in the front part, the front right part where the headlight is.” The state offered multiple recordings and body‑worn camera footage into evidence; the court admitted the items as exhibits (including the body‑worn camera disc and a separate video clip the state designated Exhibit 5).

Medical and EMS notes shown to the jury described a man found on the ground complaining of right‑side and knee pain and a left‑foot abrasion; the EMS document admitted into evidence lists the patient’s complaint and a date of service of 10/21/2023. Prosecutors told jurors the complainant was 68 at the time of the offense; one EMS report admitted into evidence described a 78‑year‑old male lying in the yard. The record available at this hearing contained both references; the court did not resolve the discrepancy on the record.

Defense opening emphasized proximity of houses, the size of the pickup and the short timeframe in which the events occurred. Defense counsel argued the video shows the defendant stopped the truck after the contact and called police, and that the evidence does not show the mental culpability required for aggravated assault: “There is no mental culpability in this case. There’s no crime in this case.”

The court administered the jury oath and admitted video and related exhibits for the jury to review. No verdict was returned at this hearing; the case remains set for further proceedings after the follow‑up investigative work already described by detectives.

The parties reported the matter and evidence will continue to be developed by homicide detectives and the prosecution. The defendant remains charged; no disposition was reached at the hearing.