Opinion ID: 2085821
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Denial of Motion to Correct Error Based on Turner's Plea Agreement

Text: Defendant argues that the court erred when it denied his motion to correct error, which asserted that there was a secret plea agreement between the State and its chief witness, Scott Turner, and that State's failure to disclose this agreement warrants reversal of his convictions. We disagree. As evidence of this alleged secret agreement defendant points to the fact that, on January 4, shortly after Wright's trial ended on December 7, the State amended the information charging Turner with conspiracy to commit robbery, a class A felony carrying a maximum of fifty years in prison, see supra note 2, to charge only assisting a criminal, Ind.Code § 35-44-3-2, a class C felony with a minimum sentence of two years and a maximum sentence of eight years. Ind.Code § 35-50-2-6 (1993 & Supp.1996). Turner then pleaded guilty and the court sentenced him to four years in prison. Defendant also points out that Turner's trial testimony is not credible because he initially gave a statement to the police that was different than his trial testimony, and that his earlier statement had not implicated defendant. Finally, defendant points out that, while Turner initially testified that he had made no plea agreements in exchange for his testimony, and that, as far as he was aware, he would be tried the following week on conspiracy to commit robbery, the trial court ultimately instructed the jury that Turner would not be going to trial the following week. Defendant relies on Newman v. State, 263 Ind. 569, 334 N.E.2d 684 (Ind.1975) and Lewis v. State, 629 N.E.2d 934 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), where the convictions were vacated because the prosecutor did not disclose the fact of its plea agreements with key felon-witnesses who testified for the State. He also urges the Court to reconsider the holdings of some of its other cases which defendant apparently believes approve of the use of wink-and-nod agreements between the State and felon-witnesses that circumvent disclosure requirements that are clearly applicable if such agreements are made express. See Lewis v. State, 629 N.E.2d at 938 n. 6 (expressing concern that once the prosecutor has established his quid pro quo policy for testimony, express confirmed agreements are unnecessary and tacit agreements will be sufficient inducement for government witnesses to give favorable testimony). We reject defendant's invitation to use this case as a vehicle to re-write established precedent. We have previously acknowledged the importance of fully disclosing express plea agreements or understandings between the State and witnesses, even where such agreements or understandings are not reduced to writing and where the prosecutor trying the case apparently was unaware of an agreement or understanding reached between the witness and another prosecutor. Newman v. State, 334 N.E.2d at 685, 687 (citing Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-54, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972)). The prosecutor's obligation to disclose such agreements and understandings is particularly important for, as the United States Supreme Court has observed, [t]he jury's estimate of the truthfulness and reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence, and it is upon such subtle factors as the possible interest of the witness in testifying falsely that a defendant's life or liberty may depend. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 1177, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). Nevertheless, we also have held that this duty arises when there is a confirmed promise of leniency in exchange for testimony, and that preliminary discussions are not matters which are subject to mandatory disclosure. Lopez v. State, 527 N.E.2d at 1129; Aubrey v. State, 478 N.E.2d 70, 74 (Ind.1985). An express agreement requiring disclosure does not exist if a witness testifies favorably in the hope of leniency, and the State neither confirms nor denies that hope to the witness. Lopez v. State, 527 N.E.2d at 1129; Aubrey v. State, 478 N.E.2d at 74. Similarly, hopes and expectations of a state witness coupled with evidence that a prosecutor-accomplice/witness deal may have been consummated after the in-court testimony is insufficient to bring a case within the Newman rule. McCord v. State, 622 N.E.2d 504, 509 (Ind.1993); Abbott v. State, 535 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (Ind.1989); Stanley v. State, 479 N.E.2d 1315, 1318 (Ind.1985). See also Campbell v. State, 274 Ind. 88, 409 N.E.2d 568, 570 (1980). When a defendant believes that the prosecutor has failed to disclose an agreement with a state witness, the burden is on defendant to establish the existence of such an agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. Stanley v. State, 479 N.E.2d at 1318-19. The mere allegation of an agreement does not create an agreement and is insufficient to warrant relief. Generally, in the absence of a written agreement, proof of an agreement may be established by affidavit or other testimony. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. at 153, 92 S.Ct. at 765; McCord v. State, 622 N.E.2d at 508-09; Lopez v. State, 527 N.E.2d at 1128. Once the trial court has ruled on a motion to correct error and request for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, such as Turner's plea after trial, this Court will not disturb the ruling unless there is an abuse of the trial court's discretion. See Slaton v. State, 510 N.E.2d 1343, 1347 (Ind.1987); Smith v. State, 429 N.E.2d at 958; Bubb v. State, 434 N.E.2d 120, 123 (Ind.Ct.App.1982). Here, there can be no question that Turner hoped to convince the State after his testimony to drop the conspiracy charges against him, as defense counsel cross-examined him vigorously and effectively on this point. Turner hoped that the State would charge him only with assisting a criminal. There also can be no doubt that the State was seriously considering reducing the charges because of Turner's testimony and his assistance in helping the police find the gun, for, in response to defense counsel's closing argument which highlighted the fact that Turner was looking for a deal and was not credible, the prosecutor responded: And is Scott Turner getting a deal? I don't know. There's none on the table, but I'll tell you one thing I feel, he deserves some reward for what he's done in these cases, for what he's done in this case, helping the police find that gun. I feel like he deserves something. (R. at 729.) These facts together with the subsequent plea agreement and defense counsel's allegations of a secret deal standing alone, however, do not establish that the State had an agreement or an understanding with Turner prior to his testimony. The only remaining fact defendant raises as supporting an inference of the existence of an agreement is that Turner testified that he was going to trial the week after defendant's trial but that the court subsequently informed the jury that Turner would not be going to trial the following week. Our review of the record reflects that, after Turner testified, the court on its own initiative checked to see if a venire for a jury trial had been requested for the following week and learned that one had not been requested. The court then held a conference in chambers with the prosecutor, defense counsel, and counsel for Turner. No transcript was made of these proceedings. The court reported on the record, however, that it inquired as to whether, in light of its discovery, any curative action should be taken in the presence of the jury regarding Mr. Turner's testimony. The court then inquired on the record whether the parties had reached a stipulation regarding the issue. The prosecutor and defense counsel agreed that the jury would be instructed as follows: On Tuesday Scott Turner testified as far as he knew he would go to trial himself next Monday. However, the Prosecuting Attorney and Scott Turner's attorney have advised the Court that Scott Turner will not be tried next week. (R. at 723.) The jury was so instructed prior to final arguments. There is nothing more in the record regarding Turner's testimony about his trial date and the stipulation. Although shortly after trial defendant filed a motion to correct error on the issue of the alleged secret agreement, he did not file affidavits to support that motion. We assume that had defense counsel heard anything during the conference in chambers that supported his theory that Turner had made a deal with the prosecutor before trial, he would have stated this on the record rather than simply entering into the stipulation, but in the unlikely event that he did not fully appreciate the significance of any information relayed during the conference until after the State moved to amend the information and Turner pleaded guilty, defense counsel still could have prepared an affidavit that recited what additional supporting facts he learned during the conference or through his investigatory efforts. The trial court gave him an opportunity to support his motion with affidavits and also specifically inquired as to whether he had any evidence other than the facts recited in his motion, discussed in the proffered Exhibit Awhich consisted of the original and amended charges as well as the State's motion to amend the information, the court's ruling, the change of plea order, judgment of conviction, and the transcript of hearing on Turner's change of pleaand argued orally at the hearing on his motion to correct error. Defense counsel advised the court that he did not intend to file affidavits, and that he had no additional evidence to submit. On the record before us, defendant has established nothing more than that Turner hoped that his testimony would result in dropping the conspiracy charge, and that the State in fact did reward Turner after the trial by allowing him to plead guilty to assisting a criminal. Under the well-established precedent discussed above, therefore, defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that the prosecutor failed to disclose a secret agreement that was made prior to trial. We cannot say that the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to correct error constitutes an abuse of discretion on the facts of this case. [14] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SULLIVAN and BOEHM, JJ., concur.