JUAN MARISTANY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in finding the appellant in criminal contempt for refusing to testify, as immunity had not been offered.
Appellant, having pleaded guilty to grand theft and been sentenced, was subpoenaed to testify about others involved in the same cases. He refused, cit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Murphy V. Waterfront Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
Juan Maristany appeals from a final order of the trial court finding him in criminal contempt and sentencing him to five months and twenty-five days incarceration. We reverse.
Appellant had been convicted on twelve counts of grand theft after a guilty plea. He was sentenced to a year in jail to be followed by a period of probation. While serving the sentence he was subpoenaed to give testimony regarding those same cases — specifically to identify other persons involved. Maristany refused to answer. At a hearing on an order to show cause he asserted not only a fear for his family’s safety, but also his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on grounds that his responses to the state’s questions could expose him to federal prosecution.
As evident from the record, the trial court considered and rejected Maristany’s assertion of his right against self-inerimination as justification for his refusal to give the information, relying on Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York, 378 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 1594, 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964).
The trial court erred, however, in applying the rule of Murphy, supra, to this case because Maristany had not been offered immunity by the state. See, e.g., King v. State, 353 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Accord, Libertucci v. State, 395 So. 2d 1223, 1225, n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Accordingly, the judgment of criminal contempt and the resultant sentence are reversed.
REVERSED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Landenberger v. State, 519 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…lege continues throughout the pendency of the appeal. Libertucci v. State, 395 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); King v. State, 353 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). See also Araujo v. State, 452 So. 2d 54, 59 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Maristany v. State, 414 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The case under review is factually similar to King v. State, in that King, like appellant herein, was convicted and then called as a state witness against two persons accused of participation in the same crime. King, who had not…
-
Araujo v. State, 452 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…incrimination and refused to testify. See United States v. Chapman, 435 F. 2d 1245 (5th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 912, 91 S.Ct. 1392, 28 L.Ed.2d 654 (1971). See also United States v. Seavers, 472 F. 2d 607 (6th Cir.1973); Maristany v. State, 414 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (a defendant's plea of guilty to a particular offense does not waive privilege of self-incrimination as to other offenses arising out of same transaction).…
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1964)
- King v. State, 353 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Libertucci v. State, 395 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)