Schmanski v. State, 982S358
| Decision Date | 26 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 982S358,982S358 |
| Citation | 466 N.E.2d 14 |
| Parties | Terry SCHMANSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Diane Cotton, Legal Intern, J. Eric Smithburn, Supervising Atty., Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Joseph N. Stevenson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a denial of post-conviction relief. The conviction of appellant for murder was affirmed on appeal in Schmanski v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 331, 385 N.E.2d 1122. The petition below was based upon claims that the prosecution had failed to properly disclose a grant of immunity to a prosecution witness, and that defense counsel at trial had been ineffective in the representation he had provided.
Trial defense counsel learned during the trial, and immediately before the testimony of a witness for the prosecution, that the witness, appellant's girlfriend Bierwagen, had been induced during the pre-trial period to provide the police with a statement containing the substance of her later trial testimony to the effect that she had disposed of the murder weapon at appellant's instruction. This knowledge was gained in time to have been used by defense counsel to impeach Bierwagon, but was not. The post-conviction court concluded that there had been no prejudice flowing to the defense from any nondisclosure of the inducement by the prosecution, and that failure of trial defense counsel to take any action upon learning of the inducement had not resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel, and this appeal followed.
Promises and offers of immunity, leniency, money or other benefit made to a State's witness by the prosecution to induce cooperation are recognized as within the scope of prosecutorial authority. However, their use places a burden upon the prosecution to disclose efforts in this direction because they tend to impair the credibility of a witness or show his interest, bias or motives as a witness. Bewley v. State, (1966) 247 Ind. 652, 220 N.E.2d 612; Hoskins v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 290, 375 N.E.2d 191. Evidence thereof is material and suppression of it may deprive the accused of due process of law. Giglio v. United States, (1972) 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104.
The conclusion of the trial court that there was no prejudice flowing from any nondisclosure of the inducement tendered Bierwagen stemmed from its finding that disclosure came at trial in time for its use for impeachment of Bierwagen. Appellant argues that contrary to this conclusion prejudice flowed from the fact that he and his counsel did not have knowledge of this inducement when deciding what defense posture to assume, and whether he should testify. Defense counsel committed firmly during opening statements to the defense of self-defense and revealed that appellant would testify.
Our resolution of the question of whether prejudice of a quality warranting a new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bracy
...the other evidence. Nor would it have had any effect on whatever opinion the jury had of Merrill's credibility. See also Schmanski v. State, 466 N.E.2d 14 (Ind.1984). We find no abuse of 3) Propriety of a New Trial Under the Arizona Discovery Rules a) Whether a Violation of Arizona Discover......
-
St. John v. State
...of immunity, leniency, money or other benefit made by the prosecution to induce cooperation from a State's witness. See Schmanski v. State (1984), Ind., 466 N.E.2d 14. If such evidence is withheld in the face of a specific pre-trial request, the conviction must be reversed if the evidence "......
-
Mott v. State, 38S00-8706-CR-553
...State has the power to enforce them when the agreement is entered into. Daniels v. State (1988), Ind., 531 N.E.2d 1173; Schmanski v. State (1984), Ind., 466 N.E.2d 14. There is no evidence that Gray was subject to such impermissible, irresistible pressure as to compel him to perjure himself......
-
Marzette v. State
...Fancher, 918 N.E.2d at 20 n.1 (citing Sigler v. State, 700 N.E.2d 809, 811-812 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Schmanski v. State, 466 N.E.2d 14, 15 (Ind. 1984)), reh'g denied, trans. denied). We also noted: "[T]hese practices place a burden upon the prosecution because they tend to impair the......