Court Opinion

ID: 9736846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:08:20.28331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:55.041321
License: Public Domain

CONLEY, P. J.
I dissent. In my opinion, this is an example of an inexcusable attempt to secure an “immunity bath” by a person previously informed against for a major crime. Esther Escamilla and her husband, Francisco Escamilla, were employees of Farmers Supply Market in Reedley; she worked for the person having the franchise to sell liquor, and he for the proprietors of the general store. On May 2, *7361968, she was arrested on suspicion of grand theft from her employer and a specific felony charge was set forth in an information, which alleged that she had stolen over $200 from her employer; information received at the hearing hereinafter mentioned was that she had converted to her own use some $1,500 of her employer’s money during the time that she and her husband, on relatively meager combined salaries, were maintaining the upkeep of five automobiles, a new house, bail for Francisco on a charge of driving while intoxicated, and paying various other expenses. In turn, the husband was discharged from his employment as a box boy in the market for inattention to duties, involving an arrest for drunken driving and a collision with another car, and he thereafter applied for unemployment insurance. When notified of this application, his employer objected, claiming that Francisco had been guilty of misconduct in that he had not been a dependable employee. In the formal charge there was no mention of the suspicion of his wife’s theft, although evidence received at the hearing indicated that the employer was somewhat alienated against him by the fact that the wife had stolen substantially from the holder of the liquor concession.
A hearing was held before a referee at which the husband was represented by an attorney, and the wife also took her lawyer with her to the hearing. There can be but one legitimate conclusion from the evidence heard by the referee, namely, that the attempt to give Mrs. Escamilla the “immunity bath,” which she very evidently desired, was a contrived effort, and that the ruling which it is claimed, in effect, quashed the criminal charge against the wife, was forced upon the referee. Certain apparently inconsequential questions were objected to by Mrs. Escamilla’s lawyer on the ground that she did not have to answer them, because the answers might tend to incriminate her. These objections were originally all sustained by the referee, but the attorney for Francisco insisted time after time that she be permitted to give answers to these far-flung queries. And, finally,' Mrs. Escamilla was asked straight-out by the attorney for her husband if she stole any money from the employer. She was so anxious to further the attempt to secure immunity that she answered the question before her attorney had a chance to object on the ground that it might tend to incriminate her. Finally, the attorney for the employee told the referee that Mrs. Escamilla would not have to cover the same ground in testimony at any other time, and thus induced her to permit the incriminating question. Our *737law has no sympathy with connivance or collusion by a defendant. (See Hampton v. Municipal Court, 242 Cal.App.2d 689, 693 [51 Cal.Rptr. 760].)
Unquestionably, the answers given by Mrs. Escamilla did tend to incriminate her. But it seems clear that the circumstances of the case show that the answers were not involuntary within the meaning of the law relative to the acquirement of immunity. (In re Connolly, 16 Cal.App.2d 709, 718 [61 P.2d 490].) However, it is an understandable view that, under the specific code sections relating to this inquiry, the referee did not have a right to compel Mrs. Escamilla to answer, but that it was a matter for the superior court to rule upon under the applicable code sections.
Essentially, immunity is given by the state in a proper case to require a knowledgeable witness to give testimony relative to incriminating matters touching other persons involved in the crime being considered. It is not designed to furnish a gratuity for lawbreakers. The laws concerning the granting of immunity ordinarily limit the availability of this device by prescribing various requirements as conditions precedent to its enforcement. (The Privilege Against Self-incrimination in the Federal Courts (1957) 70 Harv.L.Rev. 1454, 1462.) Because of the situation thus involved it usually has been required that the state approve the granting of immunity through the courts, which have general jurisdiction over crimes. In the instant case, at the hearing before the referee for the Unemployment Insurance Commission the District Attorney of Fresno County was in no way involved. The Superior Court of Fresno County had previously ruled on the information charging Mrs. Escamilla with grand theft, and it is now contended that the referee for the Unemployment Insurance Commission was enabled to stop the prosecution of Mrs. Escamilla for a major crime in connection with an inquiry that was not vitally involved and, hence, was wholly unnecessary.
The sections of the Unemployment Insurance Code give the method of enforcement of answers in a proceeding of this kind where immunity is involved, and they were not followed. A number of requirements are set forth in order to enforce the principle that immunity is not to be lightly given, but is a matter for the state to consider through the courts having jurisdiction to try accusations of crime. The apposite sections require several conditions prior to the granting of immunity: the first is the necessity that the person seeking clearance of *738an accusation of crime shall be subpoenaed or, in other words, placed in a position where he or she might be forced to testify contrary to the right of silence granted by the Constitution. It is conceded that there was no such subpoena in this case. Mrs. Escamilla, surrounded by a staff of attorneys, came to court willingly and in accordance with plan. The excuse tendered for this fact was that her husband spoke Spanish, although he testified in English in part and has lived in this community for a number of years, and that his wife would act as his interpreter.
Incidentally, Mrs. Escamilla was by no means an experienced or proficient interpreter. She did not know or apply elementary principles of interpreting. For example, instead of translating the exact answers made by her husband, she would say, “He says,” or “He did not do so and so.” This failure to do a workmanlike job is noteworthy because of the fact that, as is said by the Attorney General’s deputy, the Unemployment Insurance Commission always supplies an interpreter where necessary without cost to those interested in the hearing.
One applicable provision of law is contained in section 1955 of the Unemployment Insurance Code as follows: “No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, correspondence, memoranda and other records as required by a subpena issued pursuant to this chapter on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. No individual shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise. Nothing in this section exempts any individual from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.” There can be no question that the hearing officer may issue subpoenas, administer oaths, and conduct the hearing as authorized in section 1955. However, the enforcement of subpoenas, in my opinion, must be required, if at all, under section 1954 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, by the superior court. That section reads as follows: “Obedience to subpenas issued in accordance with this chapter may be enforced by application to the superior court as set forth in Article 2, Chapter 2, Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.” If every referee repre*739senting the many commissions of the state may do away with criminal charges, as in this ease, the laws of the commonwealth are, in the last analysis, uncertain and subject to control by a variety of persons under circumstances that will inevitably induce contempt for a system which approves such results.
Incidentally, the District Attorney of Fresno County has undertaken, in open court, not to use the acknowledgment of crime made by the defendant at the hearing.
I would deny the application for a writ.
A petition for a rehearing was denied May 8, 1969. Conley, P. J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. The petition of the real party in interest for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied June 4, 1969. McComb, J., Mosk, J., and Sullivan, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.