Brunswick Const. Co. v. Leonard
| Decision Date | 25 January 1954 |
| Citation | 103 A.2d 115,149 Me. 426 |
| Parties | BRUNSWICK CONST. CO., Inc. v. LEONARD et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Basil A. Latty, Portland, for plaintiff.
Harold J. Rubin, Bath, for defendants.
Before MERRILL, C. J., and THAXTER, FELLOWS, and WILLIAMSON, JJ.
This is an action brought against the defendants jointly. There are two counts, one for the conversion of a motor truck belonging to the plaintiff which it is alleged that the defendants took without authority or permission of the plaintiff; the second count is in case alleging that they drove the truck to Edgecomb, in the State of Maine, where they carelessly drove it off the road whereby it was seriously damaged. They were alleged to be intoxicated. There are two crimes imputed here by the pleadings; one, taking a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner; and the second, driving under the influence of liquor. The defendants pleaded the general issue. There was evidence that the defendants were intoxicated, but who was driving the vehicle, or who actually took it, or whether the intoxication of the driver had anything to do with the accident, does not appear. The defendants rested without putting in any defense.
The plaintiff put Baker on the stand and asked him certain questions which, if answered, might have elicited the necessary information as to liability. The witness refused to answer on the ground that the answers might tend to incriminate him. He was sustained in such refusal by the presiding justice, who explained to him what his rights were under both the state constitution, Article I, Sec. 6, and under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, both of which are to the effect that a witness is protected from giving evidence against himself.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has been liberally construed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 585, 12 S.Ct. 195, 206, 35 L.Ed. 1110, 1122, as follows:
'It is a reasonable construction, we think, of the constitutional provision, that the witness is protected 'from being compelled to disclose the circumstances of his offense, the sources from which, or the means by which, evidence of its commission, or of his connection with it, may be obtained, or made effectual for his conviction, without using his answers as direct admissions against him.'' We need cite only the language of our own court in the case of Gendron v. Burnham, 146 Me. 387, 407, 82 A.2d 773, 785, to show how broad the privilege against self-incrimination is:
'An examination of the questions and the background against which they were asked and a consideration of the nature of the inquiry before the grand jury makes it apparent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vickers
...as well as state law and a federal witness against incrimination under state as well as federal law. In Brunswick Construction Co., Inc. v. Leonard, 1954, 149 Me. 426, 103 A.2d 115, this Court '. . ., construing both the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and our own c......
-
State v. McBurnie
...may have been night hunting, but our conclusion would be only conjecture. As we said in the case of Brunswick Construction Co., Inc., v. Leonard, 149 Me. 426, 428, 103 A.2d 115, 117, 'conjecture is not On this basis, a directed verdict should have been granted. Therefore it is unnecessary f......