Court Opinion

ID: 9595260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:37:45.39836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:45:01.373252
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
concurring specially.
I have no difficulty with the substantive pronouncements found in the majority opinion, and it is clear that the contempt conviction of Michele Jaramillo must be reversed. I concur in that result. I would, however, premise that reversal on an entirely different ground.
In addressing the defendant, prior to the refusal to testify that led to her conviction, the trial judge told her:
“THE COURT: And because of the existence of this statute and the circumstances of this case and because you’re granted immunity and I hereby state for the record that the — that you’re granted immunity from prosecution for any activity that you may have engaged in or had *876any knowledge of between June 29th and August 4, 1989 in Laramie County, Wyoming, you’re granted immunity from prosecution for any such offense at any time, and it would appear from the previous testimony that had been taken that your testimony may be necessary to secure the conviction; therefore, the terms of the statute are applicable. So you’re granted immunity as I have outlined. Do you have any questions about the immunity?”
Section 35-7-1043, W.S.1977 (June 1988 Repl.), provides in pertinent part:
“ * * * Any person who except for the provisions of this act, would have been privileged to withhold the testimony given or the evidence produced by him shall not be prosecuted, subjected to any penalty, forfeiture, for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which, by reason of said immunity, he gave testimony and produced evidence; and no such testimony given or evidence produced shall be received against him in any criminal proceeding.”
It is apparent from the foregoing that the trial judge purported to limit the immunity to “prosecution for any activity that you may have engaged in or had any knowledge of between June 29th and August 4, 1989 in Laramie County, Wyoming.” Since the statute requires that the immunity extend to “any transaction, matter or thing concerning which, by reason of said immunity, he gave testimony and produced evidence,” there is no justification in the statute authorizing the grant of immunity for the court to limit the grant of immunity as it did. It is apparent to me that Ms. Jaramillo was not lawfully granted immunity under the statute. In the absence of a proper grant of immunity, she was entitled to refuse to testify for the reasons that she gave. There was no contemptuous conduct for the court to punish.
I would reverse the contempt conviction for the simple reason that there was no criminal contempt committed.