Opinion ID: 1938437
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: privilege against self incrimination

Text: Harden, over the objection of his counsel, was called as a witness in the case against Mrs. Williamson in Pontotoc County. He was not on trial in this proceeding. He refused to testify. He now asserts that the mere fact he was placed upon the stand and required to exercise his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination bars subsequent prosecution for the arson charges. It is doubtful whether any of the questions asked dealt with the arson charges, but there is no need to address this proposition. Harden cites no authority for the proposition that when a person is called as a witness in a proceeding in which he, himself, is not on trial before a jury, and in which he refuses to testify he is granted immunity from subsequent prosecution. We have found no such authority. It is when the witness is compelled to testify that the 5th Amendment protection against subsequent prosecution comes into play. See: People v. Linick, 79 A.D.2d 925, 434 N.Y.S.2d 423 (1981). We therefore find this contention without merit. While the excessiveness of bail is not addressed in Harden's petition, we must note it is manifestly excessive. Upon proper application the trial court under the law must set a reasonable bail. AFFIRMED. WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and BOWLING, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ., concur. PATTERSON, C.J., not participating.