Minter v. People

• Decision Date: 04 November 1891
• Citation: 139 Ill. 363,29 N.E. 45
• Parties: MINTER v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

139 Ill. 363

29 N.E. 45

MINTER

v.PEOPLE.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 4, 1891.

Error to appellate court, fourth district. Reversed.

Proceeding to punish F. E. Minter for contempt of court. Defendant was convicted, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment. Defendant brings error.

Pillow & Millspaugh, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. Hunt, Atty. Gen., for the People.

CRAIG, J.

The plaintiff in error was subpoenaed as a witness to testify in reference to a charge under investigation before the grand jury of Gallatin county. After being sworn, the foreman of the grand jury asked the witness the following question: ‘Do you know of any person playing at a game with cards for money in Gallatin county within eighteen months past?’ to which question he answered, ‘I do.’ The foreman then asked the following question: ‘(2) Who did you see playing?’ which last question plaintiff in error refused to answer, on the ground that he could not do so without giving evidence against and tending to criminate himself. Thereupon the foreman of the grand jury caused the plaintiff in error to be brought before the circuit court, then judicially sitting, to be dealt with as for contempt in refusing to answer said last question. Plaintiff in error appeared in open court, and stated voluntarily that the foregoing was a correct statement of the proceedings before the grand jury, and that he had answered the first question, and refused to answer the last, because to do so would criminate,or tend to criminate, himself. The court then ruled and stated to him that he was not required to give evidence against himself, nor to give evidence that would tend to criminate himself, but that he was required to answer whether or not he had seen any person other than himself play at cards for money; that he might lawfully refuse to tell anything that he himself had done, but that he could not lawfully refuse to tell what he had seen another person do. Plaintiff in error then asked if the court held that a witness before the grand jury was required to tell that he had seen others gaming for money, if the witness was also playing at the same time, and in the same game, with such other persons; and the court thereupon ruled that, under such circumstances, the witness was bound to tell that the others had played, but that he (plaintiff in error) might lawfully refuse to tell anything that he himself had done or said, or anything that tended to criminate himself, but that he must tell if he had seen others play; that the fear that his answer might induce the other parties to testify against him in retaliation, or that the grand jury might summon the others, and force them to tell, was not a lawful reason for refusing to answer the question. The plaintiff in error still refusing to answer the question, the court adjudged him in contempt of court, and assessed a fine against him of $25 as a punishment. The judgment of the circuit court having been affirmed in the appellate court, this writ of error was sued out to reverse the latter judgment.

Article 2 of section 10 of our constitution provides: ‘No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself.’ 1 Starkie, Ev. 136, says: ‘A witness is not bound to answer any question, either in a court of law or equity, if his answer will expose him to any criminal punishment or penal liability,’ agreeably to the wise and humane principle that no man is bound to criminate himself. Greenleaf, in the discussion of this question, (volume 1, § 451,) says: ‘Where an answer will have a tendency to expose the witness to a penal liability * * * or to a criminal charge, here the authorities are...