Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sigler v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided October 22, 1998No. 61A04-9802-PC-61Published

1DissentMattingly, Judge

I respectfully dissent.

The majority focuses on whether an express agreement existed between the State and its chief witness, Helen Williams, who was charged with the same offense as Sigler. It is true that, under Indiana law, the duty of a prosecutor to disclose such express agreements with State’s witnesses exists only when there is a confirmed promise of leniency in exchange for that testimony. Wright v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1098, 1113 (Ind.1997). Thus, preliminary discussions and offers made to a felon-witness are not subject to mandatory disclosure by the prosecutor.

In this instance,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Wright v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Newman v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Birkla v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Cox v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1998
  5. United States v. Sir Walter Raleigh Bouye, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API