Case Title: State v. Tinker

Citation: 165 Vt 548, 676 A.2d 785

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-03-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Tinker  (95-126); 165 Vt 548; 676 A.2d 785

[Opinion Filed 13-Mar-1996]


                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-126

                             MARCH TERM, 1996


State of Vermont              }              APPEALED FROM:
                              }
                              }              District Court of Vermont,
     v.                       }              Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
                              }
                              }
Randall Tinker                }              DOCKET NO. 1013-3-93CnCr


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for acquittal for
  perjury, 13 V.S.A. § 2904.  Our law "requires that perjury be proved by the
  testimony of two witnesses, or by the testimony of one witness with
  independent corroborating evidence."  State v. Wheel, 155 Vt. 587, 607, 587 A.2d 933, 945 (1990).  Where, as here, the State presents only one witness
  to testify as to the falsity of defendant's statements, "`[t]he independent
  corroborating evidence must be equal in weight to the testimony of another
  witness, and it must be, by itself, inconsistent with the innocence of the
  defendant.'"  State v. Tonzola, 159 Vt. 491, 497, 621 A.2d 243, 246 (1993)
  (quoting People v. Fueston,