State ex rel. Raines v. Grayson

• Decision Date: 07 December 1951
• Citation: 55 So.2d 554
• Parties: STATE ex rel. RAINES v. GRAYSON, Judge.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 554

55 So.2d 554

STATE ex rel. RAINES v.GRAYSON, Judge.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division A.

Dec. 7, 1951.

Wm. C. Pierce, Tampa, for relator.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Phillip Goldman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

PetitionerB. R. Raines was arrested August 11, 1949, charged with accepting a bribe in the sum of $500 from a man named Phillips.Raines was Chairman of the State Barber Sanitary Commission from which Phillips was seeking a certificate to practice the barber trade in Florida.It appears that the purpose of the bribe was to induce Raines to secure such a certificate for Phillips.When he was arrested Raines was carried to the office of the city detective where he was subjected to an examination concerning the bribery transaction.A reporter's transcript of the testimony taken at the examination was made and turned over to the county solicitor who thereafter filed an information against Raines in the Criminal Court of Record, Hillsborough County, charging him with bribery.

Based on what he alleged to be the compulsory examination detailed in the preceding paragraph, Raines claimed immunity from prosecution for bribery, relying on Section 932.29, F.S.A.There was a traverse to the plea of immunity and upon trial of the issues made thereby the court directed a verdict for the State.Raines then filed his suggestion for prohibition in this court seeking to prohibit the trial court from proceeding further to prosecute him for bribery.We granted the rule nisi.

Two questions are proposed for our consideration, one of which goes to the availability of the remedy by prohibition.In this case the issuance of the rule nisi makes discussion of that question unnecessary.The other question goes to the claim of immunity from prosecution and turns on the interpretation of Section 932.29, F.S.A. which is as follows: 'No person shall be excused from attending and testifying, or producing any book, paper or other document before any court upon any investigation, proceeding or trial, for a violation of any of the statutes of this state against bribery, burglary, larceny, gaming or gambling, or of any of the statutes against the illegal sale of spirituous, vinous or malt liquors, 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.'

The purpose of this statute was to aid prosecuting officers in apprehending criminals or those engaged in criminal enterprises, by inducing them or their confederates to turn State's evidence and tell on each other.In approving the public policy of such statute, the courts have not been blind to the fact that they may be said to place a premium on...