People v. Lederer, 84CA1129
| Decision Date | 06 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84CA1129,84CA1129 |
| Citation | 717 P.2d 1017 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Marc LEDERER, Defendant-Appellant. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Eric Perryman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Jeralyn E. Merritt, Richard Cummins, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, Edward Mark Lederer, seeks to have his sentence, which was entered upon his plea of guilty, vacated and the underlying action dismissed. We affirm.
Defendant pled guilty to one count of second degree burglary, a class four felony. He entered this plea in exchange for dismissal of eleven other counts. Subsequent to his conviction, but prior to his sentencing, defendant was granted immunity under § 13-90-118(1), C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.) and was compelled to testify against a co-defendant.
Defendant objected to the order compelling his testimony and to the grant of immunity, and now again argues that he was deprived of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because he was ordered to testify prior to being sentenced. He also states that his compelled incriminating statements could have influenced the court to impose a harsher sentence, and therefore, he should have been immunized from sentencing and from a final judgment of conviction. We disagree.
Defendant primarily relies on Steinberger v. District Court, 198 Colo. 59, 596 P.2d 755 (1979). In interpreting § 13-90-118, as it existed in 1979, the court there found that defendant was given "necessarily transactional immunity." Therefore, based on its ruling that the statute required transactional immunity, the court in Steinberger concluded that defendant was immunized from sentencing.
However, the statute was repealed and reenacted in 1983 omitting the transactional language relied upon in Steinberger. The current statute, § 13-90-118(1), C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.) states that "no testimony or other information compelled under the order, or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information, may be used against the witness in any criminal case...." Therefore, the statute protects the witness from use of the compelled testimony or evidence derived therefrom in subsequent criminal proceedings. As such, the immunity granted to defendant was not transactional, and therefore, Steinberger is inapposite here.
The current statute's explicit proscription of the use in any criminal case of compelled testimony or any information derived from such testimony is consonant and co-extensive with the protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment. See Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972); People ex rel. Smith v. Jordan, 689 P.2d 1172 (Colo.App.1984). Thus, contrary to defendant's argument, § 13-90-118(1), C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.) affords him protection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merritt v. People
...evidence derived from that testimony may be used against the immunized witness in a subsequent criminal proceeding. People v. Lederer, 717 P.2d 1017, 1018 (Colo.App.1986).5 The prosecution's questioning of the two witnesses in this regard is as follows:Adams:Q: At no time did anybody from t......
-
People v. Reali, 93CA0619
...§ 13-90-118, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A), contains essentially the same provisions as those considered in Kastigar. See People v. Lederer, 717 P.2d 1017 (Colo.App.1986). In Kastigar, the supreme court determined that the statute there prohibited "the prosecutorial authorities from using the ......
-
State v. McCullough
...statute at issue was repealed and reenacted in 1983 omitting the transactional language relied upon in Steinberger. People v. Lederer, 717 P.2d 1017, 1018 (Colo.Ct.App.1986). The new statute provides for "use" immunity instead of "transactional" immunity. See Lederer, 717 P.2d at 1018.2 The......
-
People v. Mulberry
...under this statute is as extensive as the protection against self-incrimination provided by the Fifth Amendment. People v. Lederer, 717 P.2d 1017 (Colo.App.1986). Here, the trial court correctly based its finding of contempt on its conclusion that the immunity granted defendant under § 13-9......
-
Witness Immunity Under Colorado Law
...July 1, 1994). 15. CRS § 13-90-118 (emphasis added). 16. People v. Mulberry, 919 P.2d 835, 836-37 (Colo.App. 1995); People v. Lederer, 717 P.2d 1017, 1018 1986). 17. See Mulberry, supra, note 16 at 837; accord Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52, 79 (1964) (prohibiting the federal gove......