Opinion ID: 2227408
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Witnesses Who Testify in Return for Leniency

Text: Appellant claims the court erred in refusing his tendered instruction number three, which advised the jury that they should take greater care in evaluating the testimony of witnesses who testify in exchange for leniency or immunity from punishment. McCollum finds support for his position in Newman v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 569, 334 N.E.2d 684, but this claim was rejected by this Court in Morgan v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 666, 419 N.E.2d 964, where we said: In Newman, we held that the failure to disclose an agreement of leniency between an accomplice and the State constituted reversible error. That holding requires that the agreement be disclosed to the jury, not that a cautionary instruction pertaining thereto be given. [S]uch an instruction would ... unduly disparage[] the testimony of the defendants' accomplices, and for this reason, the refusal to give it was proper. Morgan, 275 Ind. at 673, 419 N.E.2d at 968-69 (citations omitted). The court's instruction number fifteen, which dealt generally with the weight or credit to be accorded to any witness's testimony, correctly stated the law. The court properly gave its instruction and refused appellant's instruction number three.