Title: State of Oregon v. Hennessey
Citation: 195 Or. 355, 245 P.2d 875
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: June 18, 1952

Reversed June 18, 1952.
*357 James O. Goodwin, of Oregon City, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Glenn R. Jack, of Oregon City.
Walter J. Apley, Deputy District Attorney, of Oregon City, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were George Neuner, Attorney General, of Salem, Leonard I. Lindas, District Attorney, and Winston L. Bradshaw, Deputy District Attorney, both of Oregon City.
REVERSED.
TOOZE, J.
On May 22, 1951, an indictment was returned by the grand jury of Clackamas county, charging defendant Joe Hennessey with the crime of conducting and carrying on a gambling game, in violation of the provisions of § 23-928, OCLA. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty in the circuit court for Clackamas county. Upon stipulation, the case was tried to the court without intervention of a jury. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $250, and he appeals.
Section 23-928, OCLA, provides as follows:
Evidence was introduced upon the trial showing that on July 3, 1950, at Molalla, in Clackamas county, defendant conducted and carried on a gambling game known as "craps", which game is played with dice, and in which game money was wagered by numerous and divers persons.
On the trial it was disclosed that, in the spring of 1951, the district attorney for Clackamas county was conducting an investigation of gambling activities allegedly existent in that county. As a part of such investigation, the grand jury of the county was called into session, and witnesses were subpoenaed to testify before that body. Defendant Joe Hennessey was one of the witnesses so subpoenaed by the district attorney, and, in obedience to such subpoena, defendant did appear before the grand jury and, under oath, did testify regarding gambling activities at Molalla on July 3, 1950, in which he admitted that he participated. It conclusively appears from the record, and is admitted by the state, that the indictment against defendant in the instant case was based upon the testimony defendant gave before the grand jury. In presenting its case against defendant on the trial, the state called a member of the grand jury to testify as to the admissions defendant made as a witness before the investigating body.
*359 The record also discloses that in another prior trial on a gambling charge, which involved the same gambling game involved here, and wherein one Logsdon was the defendant, the defendant Joe Hennessey was subpoenaed by Logsdon as a witness and testified on behalf of that defendant. While a witness in that case, upon cross-examination by the district attorney, and without objection, Hennessey in part testified:
It also appears from the record that during the course of defendant's testimony before the grand jury a wire recording was made of a portion thereof. This wire recording was destroyed prior to trial.
Mr. Victor Amoth, a member of the grand jury, was called as a witness by the state and testified as follows:
Upon cross-examination, he further testified:
At the outset of the trial, and while Mr. Amoth was upon the witness stand, the district attorney propounded to him the following question:
Whereupon counsel for defendant interposed the following objection:
The trial court did not rule upon the objection at that time. However, throughout the trial and at every opportunity, defendant's counsel renewed the objection. When the state rested, defendant moved the court as follows:
*364 In denying the motion, the trial court said:
Defendant duly excepted to the ruling of the court, and as his first assignment of error on this appeal asserts that "the court erred in denying defendant's motion to quash the indictment."
Defendant bases his entire contention upon the provisions of § 23-932, OCLA. He maintains that this statute is self-executing. He asserts that one who has been compelled to testify concerning the matters contemplated by the statute need claim no privilege against self-incrimination, because, as he claims, the legislature has withdrawn the constitutional privilege and substituted in its place unconditional immunity. The answer we give this question will be decisive of this case.
Section 23-932, OCLA, provides as follows:
Section 23-933, OCLA, provides:
Both of these sections of our code are as originally adopted by the legislature in 1876 by an act entitled "An Act to prevent and punish Gambling". Oregon Laws 1876, p. 39. That Act contained 13 sections, § 9 now being § 23-932, OCLA, and § 10 now being § 23-933, OCLA.
Section 23-932, OCLA, provides immunity only in cases involving gambling transactions, and is in no sense general.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides in part as follows:
Article I, § 12, of the Oregon Constitution provides:
An excellent treatise upon the historical background of these constitutional provisions is to be found in 21 Va LR 763.
1-4. Under these provisions, no person can be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. As a witness, he may refuse to answer any question that would tend to incriminate him, claiming his constitutional privilege. But it is necessary that he *366 claim the privilege. It is a personal privilege that may be waived, and, if not claimed, is deemed waived. Also, by testifying in his own behalf, an accused waives the benefit of the constitutional guaranty. State v. Deal, 52 Or 568, 98 P 165; State v. Bartmess, 33 Or 110, 121, 54 P 167.
5. However, the effect of § 23-932, OCLA, is to withdraw the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in gambling cases. Under this statute, any person subpoenaed as a witness by the state in a gambling prosecution must testify, irrespective of whether or not his testimony will incriminate himself. He cannot refuse to answer, but he it not without protection. The state by this statute trades absolute immunity from prosecution for the individual's constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The constitutionality of this statute has not been questioned in this case, and, by what is said in deciding the issue before us, we do not wish to be understood as indicating any opinion that it is or is not constitutional.
The only question remaining for determination is whether under this statute one must affirmatively claim his protection before testifying, in order to preserve his rights to immunity from prosecution.
Under some statutes and under some constitutional provisions, providing immunity in certain cases, it has been held that the accused must claim the privilege against self-incrimination in order to obtain immunity, and, if not claimed, he is deemed to have waived it. For example, see Scribner v. State, 9 Okla Cr 465, 132 P 933, Ann Cas 1915B, 381; People v. Carter, 297 Mich 577, 298 NW 288.
6. But under statutes such as that of this state, we are of the opinion it is unnecessary for a person to claim the privilege against self-incrimination in order *367 to be protected. The statute is self-executing, and, when a person is subpoenaed by the state to testify in a gambling case, and testifies, he cannot be thereafter prosecuted for any offense connected with the transaction as to which he is forced to provide evidence. The subpoena itself is sufficient compulsion to make the immunity effective, without the person going further and affirmatively claiming his constitutional privilege before obeying the mandate of the statute. When the law itself compels one to testify, it would certainly be an odd requirement that one must defy the statute in order to obtain its benefits. The law never requires vain and useless things.
The true rule and the reasons therefor are well stated in People v. Sharp, 107 NY 427, 14 NE 319, 332, 1 Am St Rep 851. At page 332 of 14 NE, it is said:
In U.S. v. Monia, 317 US 424, 87 L ed 376, 63 S Ct 409, there was involved a provision of the Sherman Act, reading in part as follows:
An indictment had been returned charging appellees with conspiracy to fix prices in violation of the Sherman Act. The appellees filed special pleas in bar, each alleging that, in obedience to a subpoena duly served, he appeared as a witness for the United States before the grand jury inquiring respecting the matters charged in the indictment, and gave testimony substantially connected with the transactions covered by the indictment. No question was made but that the testimony so given did substantially relate to the transactions which were the subject of the indictment. The United States demurred to the pleas as insufficient, since neither alleged that the witness asserted any claim of privilege against self-incrimination, and, therefore, neither the Fifth Amendment nor the immunity statute could avail him.
At page 426 of 317 US, the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Roberts, said:
See also People v. Schwarz, 78 Cal App 561, 248 P 990, 993; State v. Petteway, 121 Fla 822, 164 So 872, 873; Note, 145 ALR 1416.
7. It is the duty of the courts to zealously protect the constitutional liberties of the individual, and never permit them to be frittered away by some fine-spun legal technicality. Neither legislative attrition nor judicial erosion of constitutional rights should ever be countenanced. The rule of strict construction in favor of the individual must be applied to every statute that directly or indirectly infringes upon his constitutional protections. It must ever be borne in mind that the principal objective of the written constitution is the preservation of human liberty; its first ten amendments, fortified by the Fourteenth, have for their sole purpose the protection of the individual. These constitutional rights and privileges are sacred, and must be so regarded by the courts.
*372 8. Because he was compelled by subpoena to appear and testify before the grand jury respecting the matters upon which the indictment against him is based, defendant's motion to quash the indictment should have been sustained. A hearing before a grand jury is a proceeding or "trial" within the meaning of § 23-933, OCLA, supra, and any person summoned as a witness on the part of the state must attend in obedience to the command of the subpoena.
9. However, defendant was not entitled to immunity because of the testimony he gave as a witness on the trial of Logsdon. That does not come within the purview of the statute. It is only where one is compelled to testify at the instance of the prosecution that the state grants immunity. As a witness subpoenaed by the defendant on the Logsdon trial, this defendant could have claimed his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and refused to answer the questions propounded to him, but he asserted no such claim and, therefore, waived the privilege.
The judgment is reversed and this cause remanded with directions to quash the indictment and discharge the defendant.