State v. Jordan

Summary

The court held that the prosecutor's failure to correct potentially misleading testimony about benefits offered to two witnesses did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the witnesses were otherwise impeached. The court declined to overrule its prior construction of the evidence-tampering statute, but clarified that the statute requires a subjective belief that an official proceeding is probable and an intent to impair evidence at that proceeding. Because the evidence showed only an effort to evade detection during an investigation, the court set aside the evidence-tampering conviction while affirming the remaining convictions.