State v. Tinker

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. Tinker

676 A.2d 785, 165 Vt. 548, 1996 Vt. LEXIS 33

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedMarch 13, 1996

DocketNo. 95-126

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 676 A.2d 785 (State v. Tinker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Tinker, 676 A.2d 785, 165 Vt. 548, 1996 Vt. LEXIS 33 (Vt. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for acquittal for perjury, 13 V.S.A § 2904. Our law “requires that perjury be proved by the testimony of two witnesses, or by the testimony of one witness with independent corroborating evidence.” State v. Wheel, 155 Vt. 587, 607, 587 A.2d 933, 945 (1990). Where, as here, the State presents only one witness to testify as to the falsity of defendant’s statements, “‘[t]he independent corroborating evidence must be equal in weight to the testimony of another witness, and it must be, by itself, inconsistent with the innocence of the defendant.’ ” State v. Tonzola, 159 Vt. 491, 497, 621 A.2d 243, 246 (1993) (quoting People v. Fueston, 717 P.2d 978, 980 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985) (citation omitted), rev’d on other grounds, 749 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1988)).

In the instant matter, the State failed to present independent evidence to corroborate the falsity of defendant’s statements. Consequently, defendant’s conviction cannot stand, and a judgment of acquittal must be entered.

Reversed; judgment of acquittal entered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for acquittal for perjury, 13 V.S.A § 2904. Our law “requires that perjury be proved by the testimony of two witnesses, or by the testimony of one witness with independent corroborating evidence.” State v. Wheel, 155 Vt. 587, 607, 587 A.2d 933, 945 (1990). Where, as here, the State presents only one witness to testify as to the falsity of defendant’s statements, “‘[t]he independent corroborating evidence must be equal in weight to the testimony of another witness, and it must be, by itself, inconsistent with the innocence of the defendant.’ ” State v. Tonzola, 159 Vt. 491, 497, 621 A.2d 243, 246 (1993) (quoting People v. Fueston, 717 P.2d 978, 980 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985) (citation omitted), rev’d on other grounds, 749 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1988)).

In the instant matter, the State failed to present independent evidence to corroborate the falsity of defendant’s statements. Consequently, defendant’s conviction cannot stand, and a judgment of acquittal must be entered.

Reversed; judgment of acquittal entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 A.2d 785, 165 Vt. 548, 1996 Vt. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tinker-vt-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack