Opinion ID: 853623
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Williams' Testimony

Text: Baxter claims that the State put Williams on the stand knowing that Williams would give perjured testimony. It is well established that the knowing use of perjured testimony constitutes grounds for reversal. See Evans v. State, 489 N.E.2d 942, 948 (Ind.1986) (The knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair and a conviction obtained by the use of such testimony will not be upheld.). It is equally clear, however, that contradictory or inconsistent testimony does not constitute perjury, and that it is up to the jury to resolve conflicting testimony. See id. Baxter maintains that because the State had acquired information through Johnson and Baxter implicating Williams as the shooter, the State knew that Williams' testimony would be perjured. At the hearing on the motion to correct error, the prosecutor at trial testified that, [w]e just simply had the facts as we were given them by the participants to the incident, and [a]t no time did I feel comfortable that any of these people ... was telling the complete truth. According to the prosecutor, this was a fact-sensitive case in which only the participants knew what had really happened, and therefore he could not have known whether Williams would commit perjury on the stand. Williams' in-court testimony at trial varied significantly from his previous statements to the authorities. In particular, his testimony bearing on Baxter's knowledge of the events in the back seat as the car pursued Knoebel varied from his earlier accounts. Williams initially gave a statement in which he said that Woods had brandished the gun at College Avenue, at least a mile before he finally shot at Knoebel. At trial, however, he admitted only that Woods was playing with his side, tending to indicate that Baxter would not have known there was a gun in the car. The trial court found that the State had not knowingly used perjured testimony. Although Williams' testimony was contradictory, there is no evidence that the State knew what actually transpired or knew that Williams' account on the stand was false. Indeed, the trial testimony was more favorable to Baxter than the pretrial account. The use of Williams' testimony is not reversible error.