(a) Whenever in the judgment of the Chief State's Attorney, a state's attorney or the deputy chief state's attorney, the testimony of any witness or the production of books, papers or other evidence of any witness is necessary to the public interest in any (1) criminal proceeding involving narcotics, arson, bribery, gambling, election law violations, felonious crimes of violence, any violation which is an offense under the provisions of title 22a, corruption in the executive, legislative or judicial branch of state government or in the government of any political subdivision of the state, fraud by a vendor of goods or services in the medical assistance program under Title XIX of the Social Security Act amendments of 1965, as amended, any violation of chapter 949c, or any other class A, B or C felony or unclassified felony punishable by a term of imprisonment in excess of five years for which the Chief State's Attorney or state's attorney demonstrates that he has no other means of obtaining sufficient information as to whether a crime has been committed or the identity of the person or persons who may have committed a crime, before a court or grand jury of this state, (2) investigation conducted by an investigatory grand jury as provided in sections
54-47b to
54-47g, inclusive, or (3) delinquency proceeding the Chief State's Attorney, the state's attorney, or the deputy chief state's attorney, may, with notice to the witness, after the witness has claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, make application to the court for an order directing the witness to testify or produce evidence subject to the provisions of this section.
(b) Upon the issuance of the order such witness shall not be excused from testifying or from producing books, papers or other evidence in such case or proceeding on the ground that the testimony or evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. No such witness may be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he is compelled to testify or produce evidence, and no testimony or evidence so compelled, and no evidence discovered as a result of or otherwise derived from testimony or evidence so compelled, may be used as evidence against him in any proceeding, except that no witness shall be immune from prosecution for perjury or contempt committed while giving such testimony or producing such evidence. Whenever evidence is objected to as inadmissible because it was discovered as a result of or otherwise derived from compelled testimony or evidence, the burden shall be upon the person offering the challenged evidence to establish a source independent of the compelled testimony or evidence.
(1969, P.A. 631, S. 1; P.A. 74-183, S. 140, 291; 74-227, S. 1, 2; P.A. 76-436, S. 539, 681; P.A. 78-96, S. 3–5; P.A. 80-313, S. 6; P.A. 81-104; P.A. 85-611, S. 8; P.A. 87-350, S. 4, 6; P.A. 21-103, S. 2.)
History: P.A. 74-183 replaced circuit court with court of common pleas in accordance with reorganization of the judicial system, effective December 31, 1974; P.A. 74-227 deleted reference to prosecuting attorneys, added references to chief state's attorney, deputy chief state's attorneys, state referees, superior court judges and three-judge panels and extended applicability of provisions to cases involving violation of election laws; P.A. 76-436 deleted references to court of common pleas, reflecting transfer of all trial jurisdiction to superior court, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 78-96 applied provisions to violations which are offenses under Title 25 provisions; P.A. 80-313 divided section into Subsecs. and made minor wording changes in Subsec. (b); P.A. 81-104 provided that immunity from prosecution may be granted to any witness in a criminal proceeding involving arson or bribery; P.A. 85-611 amended Subsec. (a) to replace reference to repealed Sec. 54-47 with provision that testimony or evidence may be compelled “in any investigation conducted by an investigatory grand jury as provided in sections 54-47b to 54-47g, inclusive”; P.A. 87-350 added provisions re criminal proceeding involving violation of title 22a, corruption in executive, legislative or judicial branch of state government or in government of political subdivision of state, fraud by a vendor of goods or services in the medical assistance program under Title XIX of the Social Security Act amendments of 1965, any violation of chapter 949c or any other class A, B or C felony or unclassified felony punishable by a term of imprisonment in excess of five years for which chief state's attorney or state's attorney demonstrates that he has no other means of obtaining sufficient information as to whether crime has been committed or identity of person who may have committed a crime; P.A. 21-103 amended Subsec. (a) by adding “is necessary to the public interest in any (1)”, deleting “is necessary to the public interest,” in Subdiv. (2) and redesignating existing provisions re Chief State's Attorney, state's attorney or deputy chief state's attorney application to court as Subdiv. (3), amending redesignated Subdiv. (3) by adding reference to delinquency proceeding, and making conforming changes.
Section to be used to secure testimony for prosecution; as there is no other statutory authority granting immunity, there is no basis for granting immunity to witness for the defense. 170 C. 206. Cited. 172 C. 542, 561. Assistant state's attorney has authority pursuant to this section, in conjunction with Sec. 51-278, to make applications for immunity grants. 174 C. 16. One who has been granted immunity is not incompetent witness, although fact of immunity may bear upon weight given testimony of witness granted immunity. Id., 287. Cited. 191 C. 670; 201 C. 559; 202 C. 541; 204 C. 259. Defendant lacks standing to challenge procedure by which a witness has been immunized. 206 C. 203. Cited. 207 C. 98; 213 C. 66; 221 C. 625. A grant of immunity pursuant to section includes both use immunity and transactional immunity. 298 C. 404.
Cited. 16 CA 679; 17 CA 395; 20 CA 447; 33 CA 521. In the absence of special circumstances, once the state grants immunity under section, it lacks the power to revoke that immunity. 168 CA 847; judgment affirmed, see 334 C. 431. Grant of immunity from prosecution for any perjury witness may commit while testifying is improper and in violation of public policy. 188 CA 813.
Cited. 45 CS 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
47
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case:
State v. Collymore, 334 Conn. 431 (Conn. 2020).
State v. Collymore, 334 Conn. 431 (Conn. 2020).
· cites it 28× “The primary question in this appeal is whether the defendant, Anthony Collymore, was harmed when the state, after granting immunity to three witnesses under General Statutes § 54-47a for testimony given during the state’s case-in-chief, revoked that immunity when the same…”
State v. Simmons, 205 A.3d 569 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 23× “l supplemental briefs addressing an unpreserved claim of error not raised by the parties, namely, "(1) whether the state's agreement not to prosecute George Harris for any future acts of perjury committed while testifying for the state at the defendant's trial constituted plain…”
State v. Williams, 536 A.2d 583 (Conn. 1988).
· cites it 18× “The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the defendant, Vance Williams, has standing to challenge the procedure by which a witness against him has been immunized under General Statutes § 54-47a. 1 We conclude that the defendant lacks stand *205 ing to raise such a…”
State v. Kirby, 908 A.2d 506 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 6× “nd dispatcher were “spontaneous utterances,” the defendant also contends that the trial court improperly denied his motions: (1) to suppress statements that he had made to the police at his residence and at the police station; and (2) for *365 judgment of acquittal based on the…”
State v. Collymore, 148 A.3d 1059 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 20× “See generally General Statutes § 54-47a. The primary question in this appeal is whether the state, after immunizing such a witness for testimony given during the state's case-in-chief, may decline to extend that immunity to the same witness in connection with his testimony…”
Furs v. Superior Court, 3 A.3d 912 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 21× “The plaintiff in error (plaintiff), Anthony Furs, brings this writ of error seeking reversal of the judgment of the trial court finding him in criminal contempt of court for refusing to testify in the trial of Alfredo Gonzalez, following the court’s order granting the state’s…”
State v. McIver, 518 A.2d 1368 (Conn. 1986).
· cites it 8× “On direct examination, the witness asserted her fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination as to any questions concerning her contact with the victim.”
Morant v. State, 802 A.2d 93 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 5× “The petitioner thereafter moved the court, pursuant to federal due process law, to extend immunity to Ruiz on its own, which motion the court denied.”
State v. Rivera, 736 A.2d 790 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 6× “7 In support of his motion, the defendant maintained that, because our statutes relating to investigatory grand juries; General Statutes § 54-47a et seq.; do not expressly authorize the state to introduce a defendant’s grand jury testimony in its case-in-chief, such use is…”
Martin v. Flanagan, 789 A.2d 979 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 4× “The state’s argument here suggests that when a court improperly orders a witness to testify, it essentially grants him use immunity, notwithstanding the otherwise proper exercise of the privilege, the trial court’s lack of power to grant such use immunity, and the state’s…”
State v. Holmes, 777 A.2d 627 (Conn. 2001).
· cites it 5× “General Statutes § 54-47a 6 authorizes the prosecution to *254 grant immunity to state witnesses under certain circumstances.”
In re Jud. Inquiry No. 85-01, 605 A.2d 545 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 4× “This act significantly altered existing procedures governing the investigatory grand jury system and *631 included, for the first time, a provision that requests for public disclosure were to be determined by a panel of judges.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-47a(1) — 1 case
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.