Opinion ID: 2569336
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony in Prior Proceedings.

Text: Jim Harris, then Ada County Prosecuting Attorney, presented the State's case at Sivak's jury trial. The State showed that Sivak, who formerly worked at the same gas station as Wilson, had been fired approximately six weeks before the murder, in part for his inability to work harmoniously with Wilson. Two witnesses placed Sivak and Bainbridge at the gas station at approximately 6:45 a.m. on the morning of the murder. Shortly after 7:00 a.m., customers discovered Wilson in a back room of the station. She had been stabbed twenty times and shot seven times at close range. She died later that day. A knife blade was found at the scene. Ballistic results matched a .22 revolver found in Sivak's storage shed to bullets recovered from the murder scene. Although the .22 was mostly wiped clean, it contained Sivak's fingerprint. At trial, a former Ada County inmate, Jimmy Leytham, testified that Sivak had made incriminating statements to him. [2] On direct examination, Leytham testified that he came forward with information about Sivak [b]ecause I have a wife and kids out on the streets, and I wouldn't want anything to happen to them. He said that he did not ask for any particular favoritism from the State in exchange for his willingness to testify. When specifically asked if county or State agencies did anything for him, he stated, After the preliminary hearing my escape got dismissed for me. He also noted that a charge pending in Twin Falls was dismissed. When Harris asked, Do you know whether or not my office had anything to do with that? Leytham replied, I don't know. Leytham stated that he was on unsupervised parole. On cross-examination, the defense did not ask Leytham pointed questions about any deals with the prosecution, but it did highlight all the charges that had been pending against Leytham. [3] It then asked, [I]s it fair to say that you are a free man today because you testified here today and because you testified in Nathan Crispin's case? [4] Leytham responded, No, sir. In Sivak's first petition for post-conviction relief, Sivak charged that the prosecution failed to reveal the substance of agreements with Leytham. Sivak II, 112 Idaho at 206, 731 P.2d at 201. Ada County Prosecutor Harris testified that his office had used Leytham as a jailhouse informant before the Sivak material emerged. Id. at 207, 731 P.2d at 202. Harris stated that he told his investigators he would make no deals with Leytham but would consider his testimony with regard to other sentencing decisions we had to make regarding his cases. Id. Harris testified that to the best of my recollection, subsequent to his testimony his office reduced or dismissed a charge pending against Leytham, as much for his cooperation in other cases as in the Sivak case. Id. Harris claimed, We didn't consider his testimony in this case as being all that important, frankly. Id. at 208, 731 P.2d at 203. This Court addressed this issue on appeal. After quoting at length from Harris's testimony, the Court concluded, It is clear ... that the state made no specific agreement with Leytham whereby his cooperation in Sivak's case would result in future lenient treatment. Id. It noted that defense counsel knew that Sivak was cooperating on the Kansas [Crispin] case and that the prosecutor would take Leytham's cooperation into account when considering other prosecutions against him. Id. This Court concluded that Sivak did not meet his burden of showing that there was an agreement that the State failed to disclose to the defense. Id.