914.04
Witnesses; person not excused from testifying or producing evidence in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him or her; use of testimony given or evidence produced.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying or producing evidence in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him or her; use of testimony given or evidence produced.—No person who has been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felony trial jurisdiction, grand jury, or state attorney upon investigation, proceeding, or trial for a violation of any of the criminal statutes of this state upon the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of the person may tend to convict him or her of a crime or to subject him or her to a penalty or forfeiture, but no testimony so given or evidence so produced shall be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. Such testimony or evidence, however, may be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding for perjury committed while giving such testimony or producing such evidence or for any perjury subsequently committed.
History.—s. 1, ch. 5400, 1905; s. 1, ch. 7850, 1919; RGS 6017; CGL 8311; s. 1, ch. 69-316; s. 97, ch. 70-339; s. 1, ch. 71-99; s. 36, ch. 73-334; s. 1, ch. 82-393; s. 175, ch. 83-216; s. 1, ch. 85-41; s. 1522, ch. 97-102.
Note.—Former s. 932.29.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 102
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Tsavaris v. Scruggs
Tsavaris v. Scruggs (1977)
“This is an original proceeding on suggestion for writ of prohibition, which raises questions under the immunity statute, Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975). [1] Dr.”
DeBock v. State (1987)
“" § 914.04, Fla. Stat. (1981) (emphasis added).”
Grant v. State (2002)
“" § 914.04, Fla. Stat (2001). While the statute does not *773 specifically include the OSP, section 16.”
Johnston v. State (1986)
“Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to enforce section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983), and his motion in limine requesting the court to prohibit the state from introducing into evidence the statement of the defendant discussing two letters.”
Jenny v. State (1984)
“The district court reversed, finding that section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) did not confer immunity in the absence of petitioner's having asserted his privilege against self-incrimination and the state having compelled his answer over his objection.”
Ciravolo v. the Florida Bar (1978)
“We must decide a most difficult question: whether or not evidence given by an attorney, following a grant of immunity under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), may be used against him in a disciplinary proceeding brought by The Florida Bar.”
Dennis v. State (2010)
“1973) (issuing writ to compel trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if the transactional immunity or use immunity provisions of section 914.04, Florida Statutes, were applicable); Owen v.”
State Ex Rel. Hough v. Popper (1973)
“After being indicted, petitioners moved for dismissal of the indictment based, inter alia, on a contention that they were immunized from prosecution for the offenses charged, by virtue of the mentioned testimony and pursuant to F.S. § 914.04, F.S.A. This section provides: "No…”
McKay v. Great American Insurance Co. (2004)
“McKay and the prosecutor negotiated to include in the agreement the language providing that testimony under the agreement was pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (2003). Section 914.”
State v. Montgomery (1985)
“2d DCA 1969); § 914.04, Fla. Stat. (1983). The problem arises when the state refuses to grant immunity and the defendant claims either (1) the prosecutor is conducting the case in an improper manner by unreasonably refusing to grant the witness immunity in an attempt to distort…”
Farmer v. City of Fort Lauderdale (1983)
“The issues upon which this decision rests do not involve either section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979), or our decision in Lurie v.”
State v. Tsavaris (1980)
“Tsavaris first asserted that he was immunized from prosecution for the murder of Sally Burton under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) by reason of his secretary's compliance with the subpoenas duces tecum.”
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.