Opinion ID: 1935115
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Instruction Regarding Alexander's Plea Bargain

Text: Defendant contends that the court should have instructed the jury that although Alexander's plea agreement was conditioned on her truthful testimony, the fact that the State had not withdrawn her agreement did not constitute an implicit endorsement of her veracity. We find no merit in defendant's claim. Testimony regarding the requirement in the plea agreement that Alexander testify truthfully was elicited by both the prosecution and defense. However, the prosecutor never suggested that the promise of truthful testimony contained in the plea agreement provided any assurance that Alexander's testimony was truthful. Furthermore, the trial court specifically instructed the jury that it had to give careful scrutiny to Alexander's testimony because of the possibility that it was influenced by the prospect of beneficial treatment. Defense counsel did not request the instruction that defendant now claims was necessary. Considering the lack of attention during this lengthy trial to the pledge of truth contained in the agreement, we question whether the court would have acted properly in bringing to the jury's attention prior to deliberation, without request from defense counsel, the existence of the pledge and the fact that the plea agreement had not been withdrawn  and then instructing the jury that it should disregard that fact. Such an instruction could have been more damaging to defendant than any harm caused by the court's failure to so instruct the jury.