DALE KING, 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.
A witness's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is not waived by testifying at their own trial if an appeal from that conviction is pending.
Dale King, previously adjudicated guilty of murder, refused to testify at the trial of co-defendants, claiming his Fifth Amendment privilege. The tria…
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 Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
The appellant, Dale King, was called as a prosecution witness at the trial of two persons who were accused in the same murder for which King had previously been adjudicated guilty. King refused to testify and claimed his privilege against self-incrimination. The trial judge ruled that he had waived his Fifth Amendment privilege because he had testified at his own trial. Upon further refusal, based upon the advice of his attorney, King was sentenced to sixty days incarceration for direct criminal contempt. This appeal is from the last order. We reverse.
King was found guilty on October 9, 1976, of charges growing out of the same incident that he now claims privilege. A notice of appeal from his conviction was timely filed on November 18, 1976. On January 5, 1977, King was called to testify as a prosecution witness against his code-fendants. At that time, his appeal was pending and his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution were valid and outstanding. See Mills v. United States, 281 F. 2d 736 (4th Cir. 1960); and cf. Salem v. State, 305 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Saunders v. State, 319 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); and United States v. Wilcox, 450 F. 2d 1131 (5th Cir. 1971).
The State urges that if King had testified, he would have had immunity under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975). We do not consider this argument inasmuch as appellant was not informed that he would be given immunity. See Ballengee v. State, 144 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
Accordingly, the judgment of direct contempt and the sentence pursuant thereto are reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to discharge the defendant from this charge.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meehan v. State, 397 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…o apply after his conviction. The right against self-incrimination does not terminate on conviction. A person who has been convicted but whose appeal is pending retains that right if called to testify in a trial of other individuals. King v. State, 353 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). It also continues to apply after a person has been convicted but before he is sentenced. Mills v. United States, 281 F. 2d 736 (4th Cir. 1960); Steinberger v. District Court, Colo., 596 P. 2d 755 (1979); People v. Brennan, 229 Ap…
-
Landeverde v. State, 769 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…absence of a promise of immunity, a convicted felon with an appeal pending has a Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify, and this ‘privilege continues throughout the pendency of the appeal.” Id. at 713 (emphasis supplied); see also King v. State, 353 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Testimony of Cuevas Cuevas’ assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege is more problematic. Appellant’s trial counsel objected to Cuevas’ claim of a privilege, arguing that Cuevas had no reason to fear further prosecution in light…
-
Libertucci v. State, 395 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). In the absence of a grant of immunity, Herring’s right to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege, if called by the State to testify in Libertucci’s trial, continued throughout the pendency of his appeal. King v. State, 353 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). [The rule of King is otherwise in those jurisdictions which provide use, but not transactional, immunity. Compare In re Liddy, 506 F. 2d 1293 (D.C.Cir.1974), with Frank v. United States, 347 F. 2d 486 (D.C.Cir.1965). See also Uni…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Wilcox, 450 F.2d 1131 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Penson v. State, 319 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Ballengee v. State, 144 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Mills v. United States, 281 F.2d 736 (4th Cir. 1960)
- Saunders v. State, 319 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Salem v. State, 305 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)