Court Opinion

ID: 9834461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:37:04.534314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:15.995992
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[3] It is earnestly insisted by appellant that Alvin Holzheuser did not state that the evidence he refused to give would incriminate and this court is adjured to adhere to its opinion on the former appeal. The court asked the witness: “Mr. Holzheuser, do you swear unequivocally that the answer to this question might incriminate you?” To which he answered: “Yes.” It is true that the witness became somewhat confused on a cross-examination, but the trial judge ruled that his evidence would incriminate him, and he was in better position to understand the surroundings than this court. The witness stated positively that the evidence would incriminate him. The court very properly held: “It is not within my province to say it would not.” The other Holzheuser was asked: “Do you refuse to answer all these questions because you fear they might incriminate you?” He answered: “Yes.”
The motion for rehearing is overruled.