Opinion ID: 1218109
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: grant of immunity

Text: The next issue presented by this appeal is whether the testimony of witness Honaker was obtained by an unauthorized grant of immunity by the prosecutor, thereby invalidating the witness' testimony and depriving the appellant of due process of law. The immunity statute, W.Va.Code, 57-5-2 [1931] [5] authorizes only a court to grant immunity to a person when `the ends of justice may be promoted by compelling such testimony or evidence.' Myers v. Frazier, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 319 S.E. 2d 782, 802 (1984). Generally, when a prosecutor without court approval initially agrees not to prosecute if the suspect will cooperate in the prosecution of other suspects, [m]ost courts have held that in the absence of some express constitutional or statutory provision, a prosecutor has no inherent authority to grant immunity against prosecution. Syl. pt. 16, Myers v. Frazier, supra , collecting cases at 802; see generally annotation, Prosecutor's Power to Grant Prosecution Witness Immunity from Prosecution, 4 A.L.R. 4th 1221, § 3 (1981). [6] In this regard, the American Bar Association's Standards for Criminal Justice instruct us, in pertinent part: (b) ... The prosecutor may in some circumstances and for good cause consistent with the public interest decline to prosecute, notwithstanding that sufficient evidence may exist which would support a conviction. Illustrative of the factors which the prosecutor may properly consider in exercising his or her discretion are: .... (vi) cooperation of the accused in the apprehension or conviction of others; ... Standards for Criminal Justice § 3-3.9(b)(vi) (2d ed. 1986). Thus, under those standards, an agreement not to prosecute an accomplice who is cooperating in the conviction of others is not an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. See United States v. Librach, supra at 1230. Our decision to refuse to allow the appellant to attack the grant of immunity in this case is based upon the fact that the provisions of W.Va.Code, 57-5-2 [1931], seek to protect only the witness called on the prosecution's behalf. In State v. Abdella, 139 W.Va. 428, 442, 82 S.E.2d 913, 921 (1954), this Court specifically noted that [n]o one is protected under this section except the witness who is called on behalf of the state to testify.... In the case before us, the appellant, rather than the witness himself, attempts to have those statutory protections afforded him. We decline to interpret the protective provisions of W.Va.Code, 57-5-2 [1931] so broadly. Accordingly, we hold that a prosecution witness who has purportedly been afforded immunity from prosecution pursuant to W.Va.Code, 57-5-2 [1931], and who testifies against a defendant in a criminal proceeding is the only person who may assert the protection of that statute in regard to that grant of immunity. The defendant, however, in that criminal proceeding may not assert irregularities in regard to the granting of that immunity from prosecution.