Opinion
December 7, 1951.
Wm. C. Pierce, Tampa, for relator.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Phillip Goldman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioner B.R. Raines was arrested August 11, 1949, charged with accepting a bribe in the sum of $500 from a man named Phillips. Raines was Chairman of the State Barber Sanitary Commission from which Phillips was seeking a certificate to practice the barber trade in Florida. It appears that the purpose of the bribe was to induce Raines to secure such a certificate for Phillips. When he was arrested Raines was carried to the office of the city detective where he was subjected to an examination concerning the bribery transaction. A reporter's transcript of the testimony taken at the examination was made and turned over to the county solicitor who thereafter filed an information against Raines in the Criminal Court of Record, Hillsborough County, charging him with bribery.
Based on what he alleged to be the compulsory examination detailed in the preceding paragraph, Raines claimed immunity from prosecution for bribery, relying on Section 932.29, F.S.A. There was a traverse to the plea of immunity and upon trial of the issues made thereby the court directed a verdict for the State. Raines then filed his suggestion for prohibition in this court seeking to prohibit the trial court from proceeding further to prosecute him for bribery. We granted the rule nisi.
Two questions are proposed for our consideration, one of which goes to the availability of the remedy by prohibition. In this case the issuance of the rule nisi makes discussion of that question unnecessary. The other question goes to the claim of immunity from prosecution and turns on the interpretation of Section 932.29, F.S.A. which is as follows: "No person shall be excused from attending and testifying, or producing any book, paper or other document before any court upon any investigation, proceeding or trial, for a violation of any of the statutes of this state against bribery, burglary, larceny, gaming or gambling, or of any of the statutes against the illegal sale of spirituous, vinous or malt liquors, upon the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to convict him of a crime or to subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, but no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he may so testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, and no testimony so given or produced shall be received against him upon any criminal investigation or proceeding."
The purpose of this statute was to aid prosecuting officers in apprehending criminals or those engaged in criminal enterprises, by inducing them or their confederates to turn State's evidence and tell on each other. In approving the public policy of such statute, the courts have not been blind to the fact that they may be said to place a premium on deceit and treachery. They enable the state to covenant with the criminal for exemption from prosecution provided he make a full disclosure of the crime whether the one he turns up is convicted or not. They are said to have aided materially in apprehending key criminals and in breaking up gangs and criminal syndicates.
Petitioner contends that the quoted statute immunizes him from prosecution for bribery because the county solicitor was present and conducted the examination at the detective's office and that he secured and paid the reporter's fees to officiate at the examination. It is shown that the county solicitor was present but it is not shown that he took an active part in the examination. It is further shown that petitioner was not subpoened and did not testify under oath, nor was he coerced in any way. He was under arrest for an alleged offense committed in the presence of the arresting officers and admitted that he was not forced to answer any question propounded to him. The interrogation was conducted by the police detective and his assistant and petitioner did not know that the county solicitor was present.
Petitioner also rests his case on Wilson v. State, 134 Fla. 390, 184 So. 31. The immunity plea in the Wilson case alleged in substance that Charles Wilson was taken by the deputy sheriff to the office of the county solicitor of Dade County forcibly and against his will and was told by the county solicitor that he desired to secure certain information as to alleged gambling operations at the place where he, Wilson, was employed and that if he, Wilson, would reveal that information he would not be prosecuted. On this assurance Wilson answered all questions propounded to him by the county solicitor.
In the case at bar petitioner was under arrest for an offense committed in the presence of the arresting officers and the information given by him was in answer to questions incident to his arrest. No reward whatever was offered the petitioner to testify and no compulsion was imposed on him. In the Wilson case the county solicitor took charge of the interrogation, contracted with Wilson for his immunity and followed Section 932.29, F.S.A. to the letter. In this case petitioner did not know that the solicitor was present; the solicitor propounded no questions nor did he direct the arresting officer in propounding the interrogations.
Section 932.29 in terms provides that no person shall be excused from testifying upon the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to convict him of a crime. In order to immunize him from prosecution there must be compulsion, coercion or an offer of immunity in return for his testimony. What took place here takes place frequently when one is arrested charged with crime. No one threatened Raines or forced him to testify, he was not under oath and in the main what he testified to was not incriminating. It is far from sufficient to immunize him under Section 932.29, F.S.A.
The rule nisi in prohibition is accordingly discharged.
SEBRING, C.J., and TERRELL, THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.