Opinion ID: 2518363
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: did the trial court abuse its discretion in permitting jerry hall to testify?

Text: During cross-examination, Jerry Hall was shown his Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Journal Entry of Judgment. He agreed that his probation order included that he would testify on behalf of the State of Kansas in a consistent and truthful manner as set forth in his inquisition. The trial judge overruled Dixon's motion in limine, which sought to prevent Hall from testifying at trial on the ground that the probation order placed him under a strong compulsion to testify in a particular way. At trial, defense counsel's renewed objection to Hall's testifying was overruled. The trial court refused to admit Hall's sentencing journal entry on the ground it was made quite clear to the jury that Hall was obligated to testify in a truthful manner consistent with his inquisition testimony. On appeal, Dixon contends that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting Hall to testify and in excluding the journal entry. K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 22-3101 sets out the procedure for inquisitions in criminal cases. Subsection (3) provides that [e]ach witness shall be sworn to make true answers to all questions propounded to such witness touching the matters under investigation. The testimony of each witness shall be reduced to writing and signed by the witness. Dixon relies on State v. Fisher, 176 Ariz. 69, 74, 859 P.2d 179 (1993), in arguing that the consistency requirement undermined the reliability of Hall's testimony by pressuring him with the threat of imprisonment to persist in one version of the facts. In Fisher, Fisher's wife entered into a plea agreement conditioned on an avowal by [her] that if she is called as a witness in the trial of [her husband,] James Fisher, and required to testify, her testimony will not vary substantially in relevant areas to the statements previously given to investigative officers . . . . 176 Ariz. at 80. The Arizona Supreme Court disapproved of the agreement: Agreements such as the one involved here undermine the reliability and fairness of the trial and plea bargaining processes and taint the truth-seeking function of the courts by placing undue pressure on witnesses to stick with one version of the facts regardless of its truthfulness. The constraints imposed upon the witness bound by a promise to testify with consistency frustrate the jury's duty to determine the credibility of the witness. . . . . . . The prosecution should have bargained with [Fisher's wife] only for truthful and accurate testimony. Such an agreement maintains the integrity of the plea agreement process and promotes a fair trial without encouraging unreliable testimony. 176 Ariz. at 74. Hall's probation order differs from the agreement in Fisher in requiring the witness to testify consistently with sworn testimony rather than with statements given to law enforcement officers. Thus, where the Arizona court was concerned that the agreement required the witness to stick with one story regardless of its truthfulness, requiring the witness to testify consistently with previous sworn testimony might seem to alleviate or abate questions about the truthfulness of the previous testimony. In State v. Rivera, 207 Ariz. 383, 388, 86 P.3d 963 (Ariz. App. 2004), however, the Arizona Court of Appeals refused to distinguish Fisher on the ground that the Rivera witnesses agreed to testify truthfully as well as consistently with previous statements: We do not agree that such a distinction meaningfully addresses the concerns that gave rise to the law expressed in Fisher. Fisher is designed to preserve the role of a trial as the crucible by which a jury evaluates the truthfulness of testimony. See 176 Ariz. at 74, 859 P.2d at 184. Thus, Fisher prohibits the State from pre-scripting testimony by conditioning a witness's plea agreement on her rendition of a particular version of events. Id. Even if the witness avers in her plea agreement that the specified version of events is true and that the witness will so testify at trial, that avowal is made when the witness is not subject to the testing and confrontation her testimony would receive at trial. Once having entered the agreement, however, the witness is compelled by the desire to preserve her plea agreement to hold to the specified version of events at trial regardless of its truth. The State, stating that there is a split in authority as to whether a consistency agreement affects a defendant's right to a fair trial, places its reliance on People v. Jones, 236 Mich. App. 396, 600 N.W.2d 652 (1999), app. denied 461 Mich. 994 (2000), as counter to the Arizona cases. In Jones, four witnesses entered into use immunity agreements that provided as follows: 'IN THE MATTER OF [Witness], that if [Witness] provides a truthful statement to the Detroit Police Department concerning his knowledge of the killing of Tyrone [sic] Hackett and testifies truthfully in all trials, proceedings and hearings in connection with that killing the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office will not use [Witness'] testimony to bring charges against him.' 236 Mich. App. at 399. The Court of Appeals commented on the language of the agreements: While it would appear from the text of the immunity agreements that the witnesses agreed to give a truthful statement to the police in the future, that was not the agreement contemplated by the parties. It is undisputed that the police statements referred to in the immunity agreements were those given by the witnesses when they were first arrested. 236 Mich. App. at 399. The trial court granted a new trial on the ground that the prosecutor's actions with regard to the immunity agreements deprived the defendant of a fair trial. The Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed and held that the immunity agreements had not resulted in a miscarriage of justice. 236 Mich. App. at 404-09. The circumstances of the present case differ somewhat from those in Jones and cases discussed in Jones in that what is at issue is consistent and truthful testimony as a condition of Hall's probation rather than as a term of a plea agreement. Thus, with regard to the probation order, there was incentive for Hall to confirm his prior account but no balancing incentive that he not enter into an agreement unless his prior account was true. Examination of the record, however, shows that Hall's plea agreement also contained the requirement that he testify on behalf of the State in a consistent and truthful manner as set forth in his inquisition in any trial that he is requested to do so by the State. The State incorporates Jones into its argument by stating that the Jones court approved a three-part test to determine if a consistency agreement violates a defendant's constitutional rights and then applying the test to the facts of the present case. In fact, the three-part test touted by the State is not the test applied by the Michigan court, but is instead only one factor considered by the court. That factor consists of three safeguards of a defendant's right to a fair trial said by the Michigan court to be used when the State gives a witness something in exchange for his or her testimony: These safeguards include (1) full disclosure of the terms of the agreements struck with such witnesses, (2) the opportunity for full cross-examination of such witnesses regarding the agreements and their effect, and (3) instructions cautioning the jury to carefully evaluate the credibility of witnesses who have been induced by agreements with the prosecution to testify against the defendant. [Citations omitted.] 236 Mich. App. at 405. The State contends that the three procedural safeguards were followed in the present case. There was (1) full disclosure of the terms of the agreement, (2) the opportunity for full cross-examination of Hall, and (3) an instruction cautioning the jury to carefully evaluate the credibility of accomplice witnesses. Dixon argues that, because he was not permitted to introduce Hall's probation order and confront him with it, he did not have the opportunity to fully cross-examine Hall about it. Review of the cross-examination of Hall, however, shows that defense counsel handed Hall the sentencing journal entry at issue here and questioned him about it. Defense counsel also questioned Hall about the pertinent terms of his plea agreement. It appears that there was a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness. With regard to a cautionary instruction, Dixon contends that the accomplice witness instruction did not satisfactorily safeguard his right to a fair trial because it did not caution the jury to carefully evaluate the credibility of a witness who had been induced by an agreement with the prosecution and an attendant probation condition to testify against him. The Michigan court, in approving a bargain for specific testimony, reasoned that the prosecution ought to be able to proceed with certainty in the truthfulness of a witness' pretrial statement. See 236 Mich. App. at 405-08. The Nebraska Supreme Court, in State v. Burchett, 224 Neb. 444, 456, 399 N.W.2d 258 (1986), also reasoned that the prosecution ought to be able to rely on the truthfulness of a witness' pretrial statement. But the Nebraska court did not conclude, as a result, that a bargain for specific testimony was acceptable. The Nebraska court considered a challenge to the testimony of an accomplice witness who had given several different versions of the crime before implicating the defendant. The Nebraska court recognized that the prosecutor treated the final version as truthful for purposes of the plea agreement entered into with the witness and as part of the agreement required the witness' truthful testimony. The prosecutor, however, did not include in the bargain a requirement that the witness testify consistently with his final statement. In the court's view, if the witness had been required to testify in conformance with his final statement, his testimony would be so tainted as to require its preclusion. Because the requirement was that the witness testify truthfully, his testimony was admissible. 224 Neb. at 456-57. We think that Fisher and Rivera represent the better view. Plea agreements may only be conditional upon the accomplice witness testifying completely and truthfully, and consistency provisions in such agreements are not enforceable. As noted in Rivera, this does not leave the prosecutor without an effective remedy should the accomplice witness change his or her testimony at trial: The recourse the State has in such a circumstance is to impeach the witness with her previous statements. It would then be the jury's duty to determine which version of the witnesses's account to credit, if any. Of course, by changing her testimony from that of a previous version, the accomplice witness would put at issue whether she had testified truthfully at trial, and thus whether she had complied with the terms of her plea agreement and was entitled to receive the benefit of that plea agreement. 207 Ariz. at 389. As to retrial, the court held: [T]he State cannot introduce the testimony of Valenzuela or Saiz from the previous trial to establish Rivera's guilt. Additionally, to establish Rivera's guilt the State cannot introduce any statements made by Valenzuela or Saiz after they entered their plea agreements and before any taint caused by the consistency provisions in their plea agreements has been removed. . . . . [W]e similarly find no reason to preclude the testimony of Valenzuela and Saiz during the new trial if the court takes appropriate steps to remove the taint of the improper provisions. As the facts of this case demonstrate, the accomplice witness herself must be informed that the consistency provision is unenforceable prior to her testimony. If she is not so informed, and thus testifies under the belief that the clause is valid, her testimony will still be tainted by the consistency provision. To `not enforc[e] the offending clause' and to make `full disclosure of the terms and circumstances of the agreement,' a trial court is obliged by Fisher to ensure that the witness, any counsel she may have, the parties to the underlying prosecution, and, in appropriate cases, the jury in the underlying prosecution, are aware that any consistency provision in a plea agreement entered by an accomplice witness cannot be enforced. [176 Ariz.] at 76, 859 P.2d at 186. The State may only condition plea agreements on the completeness and truthfulness of any proffered testimony. This course of action removes any motivation for the accomplice witness to provide particular testimony and will appropriately protect Rivera's rights while also allowing the State to fairly re-prosecute its charges against Rivera. 207 Ariz. at 391. We conclude that it was error to allow Jerry Hall to testify. However, since Hall's testimony was basically the same as that of Rodney Hayes, the error was harmless. We are reversing on other grounds, and, upon retrial, the State is precluded from using Hall's trial testimony or any statements made after he entered into the plea agreement. The provision stating that he would testify on behalf of the State of Kansas in a consistent and truthful manner as set forth in his inquisition is unenforceable. Hall may testify if, upon retrial, the trial court takes the necessary steps to ensure that Hall, his counsel, the prosecutor, and, if appropriate, the jury, are aware that the consistency provision in the plea agreement and probation order cannot be enforced.