Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 900 — Court Practice and Procedure
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-199 (2026)

Questions which need not be answered. Self-incrimination

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In any hearing or trial, a party interrogated shall not be obliged to answer a question or produce a document the answering or producing of which would tend to incriminate him, or to disclose his title to any property if the title is not material to the hearing or trial.

(b) The right to refuse to answer a question, produce a document or disclose a title may be claimed by the party interrogated or by counsel in his behalf.

(1949 Rev., S. 7951; P.A. 82-160, S. 62.)

History: P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section and inserted Subsec. indicators.

See Sec. 51-35 re witnesses' imprisonment for refusal to testify and protection against self-incrimination.

See Sec. 54-84 re option of accused to testify or remain silent during trial.

Answers to interrogatories did not expose defendant to self-degradation and self-incrimination. 137 C. 404. Privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to corporations. 212 C. 661. Cited. 229 C. 716.

Cited. 32 CA 811; 37 CA 456; judgment reversed, see 236 C. 176.

The term “any hearing or trial” includes the taking of a deposition. 31 CS 66. Cited. 32 CS 306.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Lieberman v. Reliable Refuse Co., 563 A.2d 1013 (Conn. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lieberman v. Reliable Refuse Co., 563 A.2d 1013 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 43× “The issue in this case is whether a corporation under investigation for antitrust violations may invoke the privilege against self-incrimination of General Statutes § 52-199 1 to avoid compliance with interrogatories and a subpoena duces tecum issued by the attorney general.”
Elliott v. City of Waterbury, 715 A.2d 27 (Conn. 1998). “2d 1013 (1989) (concluding that General Statutes “§ 52-199 codified, but did not [change]” common *408 law and constitutional law privilege against self-incrimination); State v.”
State v. Cecarelli, 631 A.2d 862 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 2× “While the personal nature of this privilege does not prohibit an attorney from claiming it on behalf of a client who is being interrogated in a civil matter, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-199 (b), no such statutory provision permits an attorney to claim the privilege on…”
Westport Nat'l Bank v. Wood, 328 A.2d 724 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1974). · cites it 2× “This law has also been codified by adoption of General Statutes § 52-199: “In the conduct of any hearing or trial, a party interrogated shall not be obliged to answer a question or produce a document the answering or producing of which would tend to incriminate him or to…”
Lopez v. Comm'r of Corr., 330 A.3d 933 (Conn. App. Ct. 2025). · cites it 2× “‘‘While the personal nature of this privilege does not prohibit an attorney from claiming it on behalf of a client who is being interrogated in a civil matter, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-199 (b), no such statutory provi- sion permits an attorney to claim the privilege on…”
State v. Wilkes, 656 A.2d 1061 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 4× “While the personal nature of this privilege does not prohibit an attorney from claiming it on behalf of a client who is being interrogated in a civil matter, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-199 (b), 5 no such statutory provision permits an attorney to claim the privilege on…”
Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy, 349 Conn. 513 (Conn. 2024). · cites it 2× “We conclude that the trial court incor- rectly determined that the plaintiff was not required to prove that Lipman and, through him, Durafloor and ProRez, had knowledge of the plaintiff’s trade secrets 1 The appeals were filed in the Appellate Court, and we transferred them to…”
State v. Anonymous (1976-2), 353 A.2d 789 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1975). “Similar phraseology, “give evidence,” *310 is found in General Statutes § 51-35, but different language is used in § 52-199 which relates to “answering] . .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.