Opinion ID: 2399091
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Immunized Witness Instruction

Text: [¶ 19] Cormier's contention that the jury should have been instructed that Kelly, who testified for the State, had been granted immunity is without merit. Following his adjudication in juvenile court for having committed sexual crimes involving the same victim, Kelly was serving the maximum possible juvenile sentence at a juvenile facility. There had been no promise of immunity made to Kelly in exchange for his testimony. [¶ 20] Cormier also requested that the court instruct the jury to view Kelly's testimony with greater scrutiny. It is within the justice's discretion to decide [whether it is] unnecessary to single out [specific] testimony for special scrutiny, and perhaps undesirable to do so because of undue emphasis. State v. Atkinson, 458 A.2d 1200, 1204 (Me.1983). The general instructions given in this case were adequate to emphasize to the jury the importance of determining witness credibility, and the court acted within its discretion in refusing to give the requested special scrutiny instruction.