Opinion ID: 2298911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony of Immunized Accomplice

Text: After the trial justice completed his jury charge, which contained a general instruction to scrutinize the credibility of witnesses, [6] defendant orally requested him to instruct the jury further as follows: The jury must view the testimony of a participant in the crime charged with care and caution, particularly where that participant has received a grant of immunity from prosecution for his or her testimony. The request was obviously directed at the testimony of Jake Sutter, who admitted to being an active participant in the taking of the tractor. The justice refused to give the requested instruction but said he would clarify the instruction as to the participant. His clarifying instruction did not expressly single out accomplice testimony for careful evaluation. Rather, he charged that the jury should carefully scrutinize everyone's testimony in the same manner, carefully scrutinize it, and ultimately determine whether or not it's believable ... you give weight to it because it's believable by carefully scrutinizing it, no matter who offers that testimony .... The trial justice may decline to give an instruction in the terms requested, if the jury is otherwise adequately instructed on the point. State v. Troiano, 421 A.2d 41, 46 (Me.1980). It would not have been automatic error to refuse outright to give the particular cautionary instruction requested in this case, for Sutter's testimony was not incredible or otherwise unsubstantial on its face and several aspects of his testimony had been corroborated. State v. Porter, 404 A.2d 590, 594-95 (Me.1979). Although his testimony about events at the Hopping residence was uncorroborated, other witnesses had corroborated his testimony that defendant had driven the tractor to the Sutter property on the day the crime was committed and that the tractor had then been placed under the Sutter barn. Defendant's request came after the justice had already given his charge to the jury, including an instruction to scrutinize carefully the credibility of all the witnesses. In the context of the trial it was within the justice's discretion to decide that it was unnecessary to single out Sutter's testimony for special scrutiny, and perhaps undesirable to do so because of undue emphasis. Sutter had openly revealed both that he was a participant in the use of the tractor and that he expected not to be prosecuted. The general admonition to the jury to weigh carefully the testimony of all witnesses was adequate in the circumstances.