Opinion ID: 2162451
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State's Hostile Witness.

Text: The state called one Merle Brydon, an inmate at the state prison at Waupun, as a witness to testify concerning a confession of the defendant to him. However, Brydon would not so testify. The state then had marked for identification a statement given by the witness to the state on November 10, 1967, and showed it to the witness to refresh his recollection. At this point proceedings were held outside of the presence of the jury and the trial judge determined that at the time Brydon made the above statement, Brydon was under the impression that it would never be used. The judge ruled that on this basis the statement could not be introduced at the trial. The trial judge then declared a recess until the following morning and the jury was excused. After the jury departed, Brydon said the following: Yes. Also, that the District Attorney threatened me this morning, that he said he called the Director of Corrections and that I wasn't going to be sent to the Camp. The district attorney then explained that he did speak to Brydon that morning. The Court: I think you told me, you said that, as I understand it, while the D. A.'s Office doesn't control the place where these men serve their time, that you would accede to the witness' request, if possible, that he be transferred to Camp. [The district attorney]: I did tell him that, that I would be happy to call Mr. Powers if he was worried about any repercussion. The defense counsel then questioned Brydon and Brydon stated that he was under the impression that if he testified a certain way he would go to Camp and if not, he would return to Waupun. Brydon indicated that in his mind he was threatened or coerced into testifying. The trial judge then stated: My impression was that the witness didn't want to testify, then go back to Waupun. The state said if they could help him to see he wouldn't have to go back, they would do whatever they could. The next morning before continuation of the trial, the defense requested that it be allowed to bring out from Brydon that he was threatened, without opening the door to bring in Brydon's written statement. The trial judge declined to let Brydon so testify. The trial court then told the jury that it was excusing the witness because whatever statement the witness did make was made under the witness' impression that such statement would not be used in evidence. On appeal, the defendant argues that the court erred in refusing an instruction to make the jury aware of the fact that Brydon had nothing to offer in the way of fair and impartial testimony. Defendant also argues it should have been permitted to bring out Brydon's assertions of coercion which could lead to the inference that Smith and Wild were likewise intimidated. We are of the opinion that the trial court took the proper view of this situation. Brydon was not a defendant, his written statement was inadmissible, and, therefore, there was nothing for the defense to impeach. Furthermore, Brydon was not called as a witness for the defense. On the morning of the day Brydon was to testify he indicated to the prosecuting attorney that he didn't want to testify and then return to prison because of possible repercussions in the event the defendant was convicted and sent to the same institution. The prosecuting attorney then told Brydon he would do what he could to see that he was sent to a different institution. The testimony on this question was taken in the absence of the jury. The defendant claims it is prejudicial error to refuse the admission of such testimony in the trial. We are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that refusal to receive such testimony into evidence was not prejudicial to the cause of the defendant.