STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. R. D. FOSTER, RELATOR,
v.
HONORABLE W. TROY HALL, JR., AS JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
The court held that the relator was not entitled to prohibition because the prosecution did not compel his testimony, a requirement for statutory immunity.
The relator was subpoenaed and interrogated by the state attorney, who then brought criminal charges against him. The relator sought prohibition to pr…
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 Statutory Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
The relator suggests prohibition to prevent the trial court from proceeding in a ^prosecution against him for violation of one of the offenses outlined under § 932.29, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. During the course of an investigation of the offense involved the state attorney subpoenaed and interrogated the relator and subsequently caused criminal charges to be brought against him. We ordered issuance of the rule because it initially appeared that the relator’s point was well taken. It now appears that the rule should be discharged for the reason that the full record reveals no semblance of the essential element of compulsion which is required to afford immunity under the aforesaid § 932.291 .
The gravamen of the statute is to provide an investigatory weapon to law enforcement which they are not obligated to utilize. In this case, the prosecution chose not to use it and fully informed the defendant of his right to silence and that anything he said could be used against him. *723Further, the situation was not one involving in-custody interrogation governed by Miranda v. Arizona,2 and the defendant’s submission to interrogation appears to have been otherwise voluntary.
The mere fact that the defendant was under subpoena to appear is immaterial. Compulsory attendance is one thing and compulsory testimony is quite another. The compulsion required to bring into play the immunity provisions of the foregoing statute relates solely to compulsory testimony.3 As pointed out above, it is totally lacking in the record of this case.
Rule discharged and suggestion dismissed.
LILES, A. C. J., concurs.
PIERCE, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Tsavaris v. Scruggs, 360 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1977)…utilize. In this case, the prosecution chose not to use it... . The mere fact that the defendant was under subpoena to appear is immaterial. Compulsory attendance is one thing and compulsory testimony is quite another. State ex rel. Foster v. Hall, 230 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). The prosecutor in the present case called Dr. Tsavaris as a witness before the grand jury.[7] When Dr. Tsavaris invoked the *750 *751 Fifth Amendment, the authorities stopped questioning him rather than requiring him to ans…1 / 2
-
Orosz v. State, 334 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…We emphasize that this interrogation was not one governed by the Miranda doctrine for Orosz was not a suspect or target at the time of interrogation. Secondly, Florida Statute 914.04 is not self-operating. As stated in State ex rel Foster v. Hall, 230 So. 2d 722 (Fla.App.2nd 1970): “Compulsory attendance is one thing and compulsory testimony is quite another.” Orosz was accompanied by his public defender lawyer at the deposition proceedings. Not one time did Orosz or his lawyer raise any question of self-in…
-
State v. Powell, 343 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…he did so only after advising him of his rights and after Powell had indicated a willingness to answer his questions. Such constituted a waiver of immunity by Powell. See State v. Newell, 102 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1958), and State ex rel. Foster v. Hall, 230 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2 DCA 1970). Reversed. BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- State of Fla. ex rel. James A. Johnson v. Honorable Hugh MacMILLAN, 194 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Peterson v. Wheelus, 194 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)