Court Opinion

ID: 9822795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:25:38.075895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:27.714651
License: Public Domain

*162Lanzinger, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 88} This is simply a municipal court case in which the alleged victim, Lester Arnold, father of the defendant, Jeffrey Arnold, had a change of heart and did not wish to testify against his son on an assault charge. When called to the stand, Lester attempted to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection of the right against self-incrimination.
{¶ 89} This is a fact-specific case that, despite the treatise of the lead opinion, articulates no new legal principle. A witness may indeed have reason to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection to remain silent, even during a bench trial. It is the duty of the court to determine whether the privilege is justified under the circumstances. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951); State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 120, 559 N.E.2d 710 (1990). No bright-line rule can tell us whether answering a question would cause injurious disclosure to the witness; yet at the very least the court must inquire to ensure that the witness is invoking the privilege properly, which in this case it did not do.
{¶ 90} In my view, this is a case of error correction only, and I would hold that the matter was improvidently accepted.