Opinion ID: 1296847
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Factors 1 and 2 Constitutional Texts

Text: Under the state constitution [n]o person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself .... (Italics ours.) Const. art. 1, § 9. The parallel federal provision states nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself .... U.S. Const. amend. 5. Thus, the difference is between giving evidence (state constitution) and being a witness (federal constitution). This court has already held that this difference in language is without meaning. See Moore, at 55-57. In Moore, and again in Earls, this court concluded that the purpose of each provision was the same: to prohibit the compelling of self-incriminating testimony from a party or witness. Moore, at 56; Earls, at 376. The dissents in both Moore and Earls pointed out that the framers of the state constitution had originally drafted a provision using language similar to that found in the federal constitution, but instead adopted the different give evidence language. The dissent in each case concluded this change in language signified that the state framers intended an independent interpretation of the state constitution. Moore, at 65 (Rosellini, J., dissenting); Earls, at 390-91 (Utter, J., dissenting). This argument was rejected by the majority in each case  in Earls, by a vote of 8 to 1. 2