22 N.E.3d 620
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Antonio Smith was convicted of burglary, a Class C felony, following a jury trial.
- Nicole Greenlee, Smith’s former girlfriend, testified that Smith burglary was inside the store while she waited outside as lookout.
- Greenlee had previously pled guilty to the burglary and testified under oath that she alone broke and entered, not Smith.
- The State introduced a surveillance video and detective testimony showing a white female perpetrator, while Smith is African-American.
- Before Greenlee testified, the State granted her use immunity for the guilty-plea testimony, and in opening statement warned of two versions of events.
- Defense moved for mistrial after Greenlee testified; the court did not declare perjury, and Smith was convicted. The reviewing court reversed due to knowing use of perjured testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the State knowingly proffer perjured testimony? | Smith | Smith | Yes; the State knowingly proffered perjury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. State, 474 N.E.2d 1006 (Ind. 1985) (perjury requires reversal when knowingly used)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (due process violation from false testimony)
- Sypniewski v. State, 400 N.E.2d 1122 (Ind. 1980) (due process when perjured testimony used)
- Timberlake v. State, 690 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 1997) (conflicting testimony alone not perjury; requires knowing false testimony)
- Evans v. State, 489 N.E.2d 942 (Ind. 1986) (inconsistent testimony not perjury under first subsection)
- Castillo v. State, 974 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. 2012) (accomplice liability considerations in evaluating testimony)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless error standard for constitutional violations)