Opinion ID: 1306538
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Refusal to Testify

Text: Sharon Cline was an endorsed witness who allegedly drove the get-away car the night of the robbery. At the State's request, she was granted immunity. However, when she took the stand, she refused to answer virtually all but the identification questions put by the prosecutor. As a result, the court cited her for contempt. Scheidt asserts that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct which should result in a new trial, because he knew that she would refuse to testify and that by asking her questions which were left unanswered, the prosecution would be able to place the case before the jury using irrebuttable inferences. The defendant places primary reliance on De Gesualdo v. People, 147 Colo. 426, 364 P.2d 374 (1961). However, that case is not in point. In De Gesualdo, the prosecutor placed a witness on the stand whom he knew would refuse to answer the questions on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In such cases, he must have a good-faith belief that the witness will testify or else he commits prejudicial error, and the defendant will receive a new trial. Here, however, Sharon Cline had been granted immunity and, hence, had no Fifth Amendment privilege. Brown v. United States, 359 U.S. 41, 79 S.Ct. 539, 3 L.Ed.2d 609 (1959); Wyman v. De Gregory, 100 N.H. 163, 121 A.2d 805 (1956); Lothrop v. Roberts, 16 Colo. 250, 27 P. 698 (1891). The very foundation of the immunity statute embodies a right on the part of the State to expect that a witness granted its protection will testify. Once immunity has been granted, the State is not required to assume that the witness will violate the law by refusing to testify. Even though Sharon Cline had repeatedly said she would not testify, the totality of the circumstances surrounding her conduct, particularly the fact that she testified freely about the same events at Knapp's trial, was sufficient to support a good-faith belief on the part of the prosecutor that once before the jury she would come forth with relevant evidence. After the witness was placed on the stand and it became apparent that she would not testify, the prosecutor requested the court to hold the witness in contempt. He did not continue to put forth questions to improperly develop his case before the jury. In light of the restraint exercised, we do not find that the behavior of the district attorney was prejudicial and, hence, the prosecutor's conduct does not provide grounds for a new trial in this case. Namet v. United States, 373 U.S. 179, 83 S.Ct. 1151, 10 L.Ed.2d 278 (1963).