Brooks v. State
| Citation | 233 S.E.2d 208,238 Ga. 435 |
| Decision Date | 02 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 31557,31557 |
| Parties | Bruce Craig BROOKS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
C. Michael Roach, Canton, for appellant.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harrison Kohler, Staff Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, C. B. Holcomb, Dist. Atty., Frank C. Mills, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., Canton, for appellee.
This appeal is from a judgment that held appellant in contempt of court pursuant to our "Immunity From Prosecution Statute," Code Ann. Secs. 38-1715, 38-1716.
The trial court entered an order requiring appellant to give testimony in a criminal case in which the appellant was allegedly involved. Paragraph 2 of the order read:
2.
Paragraph 3 of the order read:
3.
"That said Bruce Craig Brooks not be required to produce evidence that can be used in any other courts against himself."
Appellant, apparently on advice of counsel, refused to testify as ordered on the ground that the court's order did not provide him with "use and derivative use" immunity. He further contended, and contends here on appeal, that Georgia's immunity statute is violative of the Fifth Amendment that is made applicable to Georgia by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Our Court of Appeals, in reversing a contempt judgment, has held that our statute "prevents the production of the very evidence that the state attempted to force the appellant to give under the guise of a grant of immunity." Powell v. Allen, 140 Ga.App. 186, 230 S.E.2d 343 (1976).
Our statute provides in part: ". . . no testimony or other evidence required under the order or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or evidence may be used against the person in any proceedings or prosecution for a crime or offense concerning which he testified or produced evidence under court order."
The part of the same statute that concerned our Court of Appeals was that the person subject to the order "shall not be required to produce evidence that can be used in any other courts, including Federal courts."
We conclude that it was the intention of our General Assembly to grant "use and derivative use" immunity under this statute. The language that resulted in the Court of Appeals' decision does not render the statute unconstitutional. See Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York, 378 U.S. 52, 84...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hanson
...compelled to testify. We have held that this statute provides constitutional protection adequate to compel testimony. Brooks v. State, 238 Ga. 435, 233 S.E.2d 208 (1977). There is no statutory authority for a general grant of transactional immunity in Georgia. Whether or not a grant of tran......
-
Lemley v. State, 35912
...to testify and granting her immunity from prosecution. See Code Ann. §§ 38-1715 and 38-1716 (Ga.L.1975, pp. 727, 728); Brooks v. State, 238 Ga. 435, 233 S.E.2d 208 (1977). At the time the prosecution made this request, defense counsel informed the trial court that he thought his dual repres......
-
Corson v. Hames
...who is disqualified. 1 We have held that this statute authorizes an adequate grant of immunity to compel testimony. Brooks v. State, 238 Ga. 435, 233 S.E.2d 208 (1977). ...
-
In re Long
...evidence derived from the compelled evidence could not be used against appellant in proceedings in any other forum." Brooks v. State, 238 Ga. 435, 436, 233 S.E.2d 208 (1977). But those facts are "irrelevant to the issue of whether the state may lawfully compel [his] testimony. The state mus......