State v. Boeglin
| Decision Date | 07 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 15079,15079 |
| Citation | 1983 NMSC 88,672 P.2d 643,100 N.M. 470 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Phillip BOEGLIN, Respondent. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
The State of New Mexico petitioned this Court on a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals in State v. Boeglin, 22 SBB 982 (Ct.App. No. 7028, filed July 28, 1983). The defendant was a witness in the trial of Ralph Earnest, his co-defendant. Mr. Boeglin indicated that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege and the State moved for and was granted use immunity. The trial court entered an order requiring the defendant to "appear and testify and in truth speak in said criminal proceedings against Ralph W. Earnest." The order further provided:
That any truthful statements by PHILLIP BOEGLIN in the District Court trial of the State of New Mexico vs. Ralph R. Earnest, District Court No. CR-82-54, may not be used in any criminal proceeding stemming from the incident which is the subject of the aforementioned case against Ralph R. Earnest.
The defendant contended that there could be no qualifications under the immunity order as to whether the testimony is truthful or untruthful, and the Court of Appeals agreed. We reverse.
The decision of the Court of Appeals overlooks the fact that when a witness is called to testify, he is called to testify truthfully. NMSA 1978, Evid.Rule 603 (Repl.Pamp.1983) (emphasis added), entitled Oath or Affirmation, states:
Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that he will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken his conscience and impress his mind with his duty to do so.
The defendant, a witness, was bound by this Rule, and therefore was obligated to testify truthfully, as every witness is, regardless of what the conditions are when he comes to the witness stand. Furthermore, the record indicates that the defendant took the oath and stated that he would testify truthfully.
Moreover, a witness granted use immunity is granted the immunity conditioned upon his telling the truth. If the witness gives false testimony, it is not compelled at all. In that situation, the testimony given violates his oath and is also not the incriminatory truth which the Constitution was intended to protect. United States v. Tramunti, 500 F.2d 1334 (2nd Cir.); cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1079, 95 S.Ct. 667, 42 L.Ed.2d 673 (1974). In the present case, the trial court's immunity order was not improper because it required the defendant to testify truthfully.
To allow the defendant to contend that he was not required to testify truthfully makes a mockery of Rule 603 and also the immunity statute, NMSA 1978, Section 31-6-15 (Cum.Supp.1983). Section 31-6-15(A) provides in pertinent part:
If a witness is granted immunity in return for evidence, none of his testimony or any evidence obtained as a fruit of his testimony shall be used against him in any criminal prosecution except that such person may be prosecuted for any perjury committed in such testimony or in producing such evidence, or for contempt for failing to give an answer or produce evidence.
There is no basis in the statute for the contention that the legislative intent was other than to have a witness testify truthfully whatever his status when he takes the witness stand. Furthermore, the very purpose of the granting of immunity is to reach the truth. United States v. Tramunti, 500 F.2d at 1343. This Court has specifically recognized that use immunity protects a witness from his compelled answers. State v. Romero, 96 N.M. 795, 635 P.2d 998 (Ct.App.1981); Rainbo Baking Co. v. Apodaca, 88 N.M. 501, 542 P.2d 1191 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 89 N.M. 6, 546 P.2d 71 (1975).
Implicit in Section 31-6-15(A) is the fact that a witness must testify truthfully or be subject to being prosecuted (1) for perjury committed in such testimony or in producing such evidence, or (2) for contempt for failure to give an answer or produce evidence. To hold otherwise would make this statute meaningless. Moreover, it would also make meaningless NMSA 1978, Evid.Rule 412 (Repl.Pamp.1983) which contains much the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pothier
...(Repl.Pamp.1983). Every witness is obligated to testify truthfully regardless of what condition he comes to the stand. State v. Boeglin, 100 N.M. 470, 672 P.2d 643 (1983). The immunity order stating that the defendant must testify truthfully, was a correct statement of the law. E. Allocutio......
-
State v. Duran
...871 P.2d 971, 973 (1994) (quoting State v. Boeglin, 100 N.M. 127, 132, 666 P.2d 1274, 1279 (Ct.App.), rev'd on other grounds, 100 N.M. 470, 672 P.2d 643 (1983)) (citations omitted in DISCUSSION {20} Because the facts in this case are undisputed, we proceed to determine whether the trial cou......
-
State v. Silva, 24,273.
...is the condition that the witness testify truthfully or be subject to prosecution for perjury or contempt. State v. Boeglin, 100 N.M. 470, 471, 672 P.2d 643, 644 (1983). In the case before us, we can presume that the State was offering Salas's testimony at trial as his "true" testimony, kno......
-
State v. Werner
...evidence standard. We agree. In State v. Boeglin, 100 N.M. 127, 132, 666 P.2d 1274, 1279 (Ct.App.), rev'd on other grounds, 100 N.M. 470, 672 P.2d 643 (1983) the Court of Appeals The appropriate standard for review on appeal [of a motion to suppress evidence] is whether the law was correctl......