Opinion ID: 2054905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Luna gave conflicting statements.

Text: The evidence of an accomplice, especially in the context of a plea agreement, may be unreliable. In People v McCoy, 392 Mich 231, 236-237; 220 NW2d 456 (1974), this Court recognized that a defendant has the right to have the judge caution the jury concerning the use of accomplice testimony. In an early case this Court said: We think it is the duty of a judge to comment upon the nature of such testimony [of an accomplice], as the circumstances of the case may require; to point out the various grounds of suspicion which may attach to it; to call their attention to the various temptations under which such witness may be placed, and the motives by which he may be actuated; and any other circumstances which go to discredit or confirm the witness, all of which must vary with the nature and circumstances of each particular case. [ People v Jenness, 5 Mich 305, 330 (1858).] A criminal jury instruction provides that accomplice testimony should be examined closely and accepted only with caution and care, that the jury may consider any reward or inducement offered which may have caused him to testify falsely, that the court should state what the evidence has shown and enumerate or define the reward, [8] and that the jury may consider whether the testimony was affected by the witness's being granted immunity from punishment, receiving a promise of leniency, or being allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense. [9] Such an instruction was not given in the instant case. Nor, I acknowledge, does it appear that such an instruction was requested.