Opinion ID: 1386165
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: jailhouse informant testimony

Text: David Holm testified at trial concerning conversations he had with the defendant while they were in the same cell. At that time, he stated that he had not been offered anything in exchange for his testimony. Later, at a post conviction hearing, Holm testified that he was dissatisfied with the sentence he received in his case, and that had he known the sentence he was going to receive, he would not have testified at the Rhoades trial. Appellant asserts that this change is grounds for a new trial. We disagree. At the post conviction hearing, when questioned about what he thought he would receive in exchange for his testimony, Holm said: He [the prosecuting attorney] couldn't ever make any promises. Nobody ever did actually make it a promise.... They couldn't guarantee what the judges would do anyway... . I never did expect anything out of it. I hoped. Of course, I think anybody in my position in a situation that they're put under would hope that they would at least get some favorable consideration. But as far as a definite promise or a definite belief, no. I was just  all the time. I did hope. My attorney hoped. And that's about where we're at. We fail to see why misplaced hopes on the part of a witness would be reason to grant a new trial. There is no evidence in the record that any type of reward was promised in exchange for the testimony. In addition, Holm's testimony at trial would not have differed. At the post conviction proceeding, Holm stated: I don't believe there would be any change in my testimony. As far as the case itself. I think the only change there would be as far as  I think would be maybe under the influence. The influences. That actually got me the courage, I guess. I was  you know, I just  I felt assured, You know, that what I was doing was the right thing. And I was assured that it may be in a sense that what I was doing was in essence paying back a debt to society. The trial court found that this situation did not raise an issue of material fact. We agree. Appellant further asserts that the trial court should have excluded David Holm's testimony altogether. He argues that jailhouse informants are inherently unreliable, and that Holm, in particular, had a reputation for untruthfulness. We hold that it was not error for the trial court to admit the testimony of David Holm. It is up to the trier of fact to determine the credibility of witnesses: An appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury regarding the credibility of witnesses, the weight of their testimony, or the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. State v. Campbell, 104 Idaho 705, 718-19, 662 P.2d 1149, 1162-63 (Ct.App. 1983). State v. Clay, 112 Idaho 261, 263, 731 P.2d 804, 806 (Ct.App. 1987), review denied. Allowing Holm to testify is not grounds for a new trial. It was the jury's responsibility to weigh the credibility of his testimony.