In Re Leavitt

California Court of Appeal Oct 19, 1959 No. Crim. 6791Published

Before: Shea

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a judgment debtor may invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in supplementary proceedings when the requested financial information could provide evidence in a pending contempt proceeding. Consequently, the order holding the petitioner in contempt for refusing to answer was erroneous.

Issues

Whether a witness in judgment-debtor proceedings may invoke the privilege against self-incrimination regarding questions about their financial status.
Whether the privilege against self-incrimination applies when the potential criminal exposure is for contempt of court.

Disposition. petitioner discharged

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Constitution gives to every witness the privilege against self-incrimination.”

“Contempt of court has long been recognized as a specific criminal offense. A party charged with contempt cannot be compelled to testify against himself in such proceedings.”

“The answers to the questions asked of the defendant in this case clearly would have furnished “a link in a chain of evidence” necessary to make the defendant guilty of contempt.”

SHEA, J., pro tem.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner is the defendant in a divorce action. He was ordered to pay alimony. He was in default and an execution was issued and was returned unsatisfied. Plaintiff-wife sought to enforce the order by supplementary proceedings.

[537]

An order was issued requiring the defendant to appear for a judgment-debtor’s examination on July 14, 1959.

An order to show causé

in re

contempt, previously issued, had been dismissed. A second one was issued and served upon the defendant on July 14, 1959, at the time that he appeared in court. The order to show cause

in re

contempt was set for hearing on August 19,1959.

After some delay the judgment-debtor proceedings came on for hearing on July 16, 1959. The defendant was sworn and took the stand. The examination generally pertained to his financial status and the source and extent of his income.

The questions asked, which are material here, are as follows:

“Q. Do you pay your mother any rent where you reside ?

“Q. Tour counsel stated here that you had some working arrangement with your mother at the present time in connection with this business. What is that arrangement?

“Q. What are your present sources of income ?

“Q. Are you deriving any income at the present time from Nursery Indeti-Foto ?

“Q. Do you have any interest in any other businesses at the present time ?

Counsel for the defendant interposed an objection to the first question and advised the witness not to answer questions pertaining to the possession of funds. The witness, thereafter, refused to answer each of the questions hereinabove listed and stated that his refusal was based upon the ground that the answers might tend to incriminate him. In each instance the court instructed the witness to answer the question. No answers were given by the witness. The court found him in contempt for refusal to answer.

In Re Leavitt

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief