Court Opinion

ID: 9620634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:44:59.673503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:52.100032
License: Public Domain

Hill, Justice,
concurring specially.
It will be seen from the Court of Appeals opinion in this case, 138 Ga. App. 683 (227 SE2d 84) (1976), that both the wife and husband were granted immunity from *649prosecution based on their grand jury testimony, that the husband’s refusal thereafter to answer the questions was based upon the privilege against self-incrimination, that he was held in. contempt, that the wife’s refusal to answer the questions was based upon self-incrimination and the husband-wife privilege, and that she was found not to be in contempt based on the latter privilege.
It may seem incongruous that she could refuse to give testimony against her husband who had been granted immunity, but the husband-wife privilege is not limited to testimony incriminating the husband and an immunity order does not abrogate this privilege. Moreover, the grant of immunity to the wife did not protect her husband from prosecution based on her testimony. Finally, the record does not contain the October 31,1975, depositions so that we cannot say that the trial judge erred in finding that the wife’s deposition contained testimony against the husband.