Court Opinion

ID: 9575652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:15:37.953115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:40.268361
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice,
dissenting, with whom MACY, C.J., joins.
The majority opinion reverses this case for the sole reason that no hearing was held to determine whether Russell had immunity from prosecution for murder. I concur in all of the opinion except the reversal on the immunity question because of failure to hold a Denno-type hearing. A hearing is not required where the nature and extent of immunity granted is clearly stated upon the record. On the record Russell was not granted immunity for prosecution of murder.
I would affirm the conviction.
I believe the requirement for a Denno-type hearing we adopted in Hall v. State, 851 P.2d 1262 (Wyo.1993), should be limited to those situations in which the immunity granted cannot be clearly discerned from the record or those cases in which it is claimed that immunity was lost because of a breach of the immunity agreement. Such breach might be a claim of failure to testify fully and truthfully.
Russell v. State is not a case in which a hearing should be required. The immunity agreement was put on record and, in my judgment, is clear. In a letter to Mr. Russell’s attorney, Edward P. Moriarity, Special Prosecutor, Uinta County, Wyoming, wrote:
Conditional upon your client appearing before a Federal Grand Jury and testifying fully and honestly about certain activities that he has been involved in related to one Mark Allen Hopkinson and conditional upon your client’s full, complete, honest testimony and cooperation in later state and federal proceedings involving the same subject matter, we as special prosecutors, will agree not to charge Mr. Russell in state court with subordination of perjury or conspiracy to suborn perjury, [emphasis added]
The transcript from Mark Hopkinson's trial for the murder of Jeff Green further clarifies the extent of the immunity granted to Mr. Russell:
MR. SPENCE: [W]e ask the Court in the furtherance of justice to grant immu*1283nity, not use immunity but plain old transactional immunity but limited to the issue of perjury. That means immunity to any matters in which this witness has been involved directly or indirectly in obtaining suborning, purchasing, arranging for perjury or conspiracy to obtain perjury or any other matters relative to perjury, from a to z, under perjury.

Nothing with respect to murder; nothing with respect to any other crimes.

That’s our motion.
THE COURT: The motion will be granted based upon what’s been said. It’s transactional as opposed to use, and further based upon this witness’ oath with respect to the testimony he is about to give.
Okay, Mr. Russell?
MR. RUSSELL: Okay, [emphasis added]
The immunity granted was clearly from prosecution for an attempt to obtain perjured testimony, and Special Prosecutor Spence specifically stated on the record that the immunity granted did not include immunity from prosecution for murder. The State does not claim that Russell lost immunity because he failed to tell the truth. Thus, there is no need nor logical reason for a Denno .hearing or any other type hearing. The State simply claims that, upon the record, Russell never received immunity from prosecution for murder. I agree. No further hearing is needed, nor would it add anything. I would, therefore, affirm.