Opinion ID: 2551571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Jury Instruction on an Informant's Testimony

Text: Next, Conley asserts that the district court erred in failing to include PIK Crim.3d 52.18-A in the instructions given to the jury. This contention also lacks merit. PIK Crim.3d 52.18-A says: You should consider with caution the testimony of an informant who, in exchange for benefits from the State, acts as an agent for the State in obtaining evidence against a defendant, if that testimony is not supported by other evidence. (Emphasis added.) The PIK Notes on Use, referencing 52.18-A, advises: It is error to refuse to give this instruction when requested. (citing State v. Fuller, 15 Kan. App.2d 34, 39-41, 802 P.2d 599 [1990], rev. denied 248 Kan. 997 [1991].) However, here, the district court found that PIK Crim.3d 52.18-A was not warranted. A review of the facts supports the district court's ruling. In 1997, Larry Luckey wrote to the prosecutor's office and offered to give information regarding Conley in exchange for benefits. Law enforcement officials then contacted Luckey. Luckey informed the police that while he and Conley were cellmates at a federal prison, Conley told him that he shot Armstrong six or seven times with a .38 caliber gun. According to Luckey, Conley said he ran out of shells, and Scott got out of the car and shot Armstrong in the head. Luckey admitted he had access to Conley's papers and could have read his mail. Luckey also said that Conley showed him a letter from Scott referencing Conley's indictment for murder. Conley acknowledges that Luckey did not receive benefits from the State in exchange for information. However, he argues that since Luckey contacted the prosecutor's office in the hope of receiving a reduction in his prison time, the jury should have been instructed regarding the credibility of informant testimony. The informant instruction issue is controlled by State v. Barksdale, 266 Kan. 498, 513-14, 973 P.2d 165 (1999) (the definition of informant does not include a person who supplies information after being interviewed by police officers or who gives information as a witness during the course of the investigation). Luckey was not acting as an informant for the State at the time he collected the jailhouse information. Therefore, the district court did not err by failing to give an instruction on informant testimony.