Jenny v. State
| Decision Date | 08 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 63279,63279 |
| Citation | 447 So.2d 1351 |
| Parties | James W. JENNY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Loren H. Cohen and Max B. Kogen, Miami, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Marlyn J. Altman and Sharon Lee Stedman, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
We have before us by petition for review State v. Jenny, 424 So.2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), a decision which expressly affects the state attorneys, a class of constitutional officers. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Petitioner was served with a subpoena on October 15, 1980, which commanded him to appear before the state attorney to testify that same morning. He was questioned regarding the transaction for which he was later charged. Petitioner's motion to dismiss two counts of the information because they related to his subpoenaed testimony before the state attorney was granted. The district court reversed, finding that section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) did not confer immunity in the absence of petitioner's having asserted his privilege against self-incrimination and the state having compelled his answer over his objection. We quash the decision of the district court.
Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) provides:
Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him; immunity from prosecution.--No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felony trial jurisdiction, grand jury, or state attorney, upon investigation, proceeding, or trial for a violation of any of the criminal statutes of this state upon the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to convict him of a crime or to subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, but no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may so testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, and no testimony so given or produced shall be received against him upon any criminal investigation or proceeding.
By its very plain meaning, the statute is self-executing. The statute automatically grants use and transactional immunity to one who testifies under the circumstances it delineates. * There is no requirement that a person must invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in order to be granted immunity. Had the legislature so desired, it could have included such a provision. We will not rewrite the statute. Where a statute is unambiguous and clear upon its face, courts must accord the statute its plain meaning and are not free to construe it otherwise. Carson v. Miller, 370 So.2d 10 (Fla.1979); Heredia v. Allstate Insurance Co., 358 So.2d 1353 (Fla.1978).
The decision of the district court is quashed with directions to reinstate the trial court's order dismissing the counts relating to the transaction about which petitioner was subpoenaed to testify before the state attorney.
It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. Com.
...Id. at 204. According to the court's analysis of several cases, including the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Jenny v. State, 447 So.2d 1351 (Fla.1984), much discussed in appellant's [A]uthorities in other jurisdictions have made clear that their statutes also assume compulsion as a pre......
-
U.S. v. Turner
...thus, the statute automatically grants use immunity to one who testifies under the circumstances it delineates. Jenny v. Florida, 447 So.2d 1351 (Fla.1984) (witness does not have to assert privilege against self-incrimination to be granted immunity under statute); Meek v. Florida, 566 So.2d......
-
Meek v. State
...We find no error on this issue. The trial court also concluded that the appellant's claim of transactional immunity under Jenny v. State, 447 So.2d 1351 (Fla.1984), raised for the first time in the motion for post-conviction relief, was barred because it was not raised during the original t......
-
Kaplan v. State, 82-867
...directed as to any end, object, or purpose; to have a tendency, conscious or unconscious, to any end, object or purpose. In Jenny v. State, 447 So.2d 1351 (Fla.1984), the Supreme Court of Florida reminds us (referring to F.S. 914.04) of the principles governing statutory construction: There......