Opinion ID: 1388145
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disclosure of Immunity Agreement

Text: The State's nondisclosure of a promise of immunity to a material witness, when reliability is outcome determinative, may be a violation of due process. State v. Hinson , 293 S.C. 406, 361 S.E. (2d) 120 (1987), citing Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed. (2d) 104 (1972). Johnson contends that reversible error occurred when it was not disclosed that Harbert had been promised that he would not be prosecuted if he testified. Finding that there was no immunity agreement, we disagree. Harbert was a material witness for the State. On cross-examination, he denied that any arrangement had been made concerning his agreement to testify in return for the dropping of murder charges against him. In addition, the former solicitor testified that Harbert was not prosecuted because the investigation had indicated that he was not guilty of any crime. The court found that the former solicitor's testimony was consistent with Harbert's testimony that he had not been promised anything and that further testimony before the jury was no necessary. We conclude that the court's ruling is fully supported by the record. The evidence indicates that no agreement was made concerning Harbert's immunity from prosecution.