JOYCE D. STEWART, PETITIONER,
v.
CHARLES J. MUSSOLINE, RESPONDENT
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.
Joyce Stewart, charged with murdering her husband, invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse answering questions about her financial status at a deposition in a child-support proceeding. The court granted her petition for certiorari and quashed the contempt order, holding that she was entitled to assert the privilege because financial disclosures could form a link in a chain of evidence leading to her criminal conviction.
Stewart was entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and to refuse to answer questions concerning her financial status and that of her family members because such answers could constitute a link in a chain of evidence leading to her conviction in the criminal case.
[1] A person is exempt from answering questions that may constitute a link in a chain of evidence leading to their conviction in a criminal case.
[2] Answers to financial questions in a deposition may tend to incriminate a defendant charged with murder motivated by financial gain.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a person is exempt from answering questions which may constitute "a link in a chain of evidence leading to his conviction in a criminal case."”
Establishes the legal standard for Fifth Amendment protection in civil proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStewart was charged with murdering her husband. The state's theory of motive was financial gain. Stewart was ordered to answer questions at a depositi…
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 Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Compulsory Self-Incrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Holding that petitioner Stewart was entitled to invoke the fifth amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and to refuse to answer questions concern ing her financial status and that of the members of her family, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari.*
In any type of proceeding, a person is exempt from answering questions which may constitute “a link in a chain of evidence leading to his conviction in a criminal case.” Fischer v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 463 So. 2d 289, 290-91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); see Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 266 n. 1, 103 S.Ct. 608, 618 n. 1, 74 L.Ed.2d 430, 445 n. 1 (1982) (Marshall, J., concurring); Carson v. Jackson, 466 So. 2d 1188, 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Lewis v. First American Bank of Palm Beach County, 405 So. 2d 300, 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Stewart was charged with murdering her husband; Stewart argues that the state theorizes that she was motivated by financial gain. Thus, any answers that she may give to questions relating to financial matters, asked at a deposition taken to determine her ability to support her children, may tend to incriminate her. Certiorari granted; order of contempt quashed.
*
We have jurisdiction to review this action by certiorari under Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(2)(A), and reject respondent’s assertion that rule 9.130 authorizes an interlocutory appeal from the order holding Stewart in civil contempt for failing to comply with a discovery order. We decline to follow those cases that reach a contrary re-suit by relying on cases decided under the earlier rule 4.2. Continental Casualty Co. v. Morgan, 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Langbert v. Langbert, 409 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); In re Estate of Rasmussen, 335 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Knorr v. Knorr, 751 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…case would proceed as an appeal of a non-final order. On further reflection, we conclude that prejudgment civil contempt orders are more properly reviewed by certio-rari. See Sears v. Sears, 617 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Stewart v. Mussoline, 487 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). But see Alves v. Barnett Mortgage Co., 688 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The January order held Mr. Knorr in contempt for, among other things, failing to comply with an August 25, 1998 directive that he pay certain bills. Atta…
-
Rainerman v. Eagle Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 541 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…nish a link in ongoing and future criminal proceedings. In this posture of the case any answers Rainerman may give to relevant questions may tend to incriminate him, therefore, he has a right to assert the privilege. See, e.g., Stewart v. Mussoline, 487 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (mother charged with murdering her husband, allegedly for financial gain, was enti- [*742] tied to invoke her fifth-amendment privilege and to refuse to answer questions concerning her financial status). The order compelling answ…
-
Sears v. Sears, 617 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…rt’s 1975 opinion in In re Estate of Rasmussen, 335 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), construing rule 4.2 which was amended in 1977. See also Continental Casualty Co. v. Morgan 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). More recently, in Stewart v. Mussoline 487 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the court has held that a civil contempt order is not reviewable by interlocutory appeal but is subject to review by certiorari under rule 9.030(b)(2)(A), declining to follow Langbert, Morgan, and Rasmussen. We agree with the Thi…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983)
- Langbert v. Langbert, 409 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Fischer v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 463 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Carson v. Jackson, 466 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- In re Est. of Beatrice S. Rasmussen v. Honorable Edwin Duff, II, 335 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Lewis v. First Am. Bank OF Palm Beach Cnty., 405 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Riddell, 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Morgan, 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)