22-3102.
Privilege against self-incrimination; grants of immunity.
(a) No person called as a witness at an inquisition shall be required to make any statement which will incriminate such person.
(b) The county or district attorney, or the attorney general, may at any time, on behalf of the state, grant in writing to any person:
(1) Transactional immunity. Any person granted transactional immunity shall not be prosecuted for any crime which has been committed for which such immunity is granted or for any other transactions arising out of the same incident.
(2) Use and derivative immunity. Any person granted use and derivative use immunity may be prosecuted for any crime, but the state shall not use any testimony against such person provided under a grant of such immunity or any evidence derived from such testimony. Any defendant may file with the court a motion to suppress in writing to prevent the state from using evidence on the grounds that the evidence was derived from and obtained against the defendant as a result of testimony or statements made under such grant of immunity. The motion shall state facts supporting the allegations. Upon a hearing on such motion, the state shall have the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the evidence was obtained independently and from a collateral source.
(c) Any person granted immunity under either or both subsections (b)(1) or (2) may not refuse to testify on grounds that such testimony may self incriminate unless such testimony may form the basis for a violation of federal law for which immunity under federal law has not been conferred. No person shall be compelled to testify in any proceeding where the person is a defendant.
(d) No immunity shall be granted for perjury as provided in K.S.A. 21-5903, and amendments thereto, which was committed in giving such evidence.
History:
L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3102; L. 1999, ch. 56, § 2; L. 2011, ch. 30, § 124; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Carapezza, 272 P.3d 10 (Kan. 2012).
· cites it 8× “, K.S.A. 22-3102. The statute begins by declaring that “[n]o person called as a witness at an inquisition shall be required to make any statement which will incriminate such person.”
State v. Branning, 26 P.3d 673 (Kan. 2001).
“22-3101 and K.S.A. 22-3102, the inquisition statutes.”
State ex rel. Nothum v. Walsh, 380 S.W.3d 557 (Mo. 2012).
“” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3102 . An Oregon statute similarly provides for derivative use immunity by stating, “The testimony of the witness or evidence produced or information derived from the testimony or evidence may not be used against the witness in any criminal prosecution.”
State v. Cathey, 741 P.2d 738 (Kan. 1987).
“As is required by K.S.A. 22-3102 and K.S.A. 22-3104, Cathey was informed before testifying that he had the right to counsel and the right to refuse to answer any questions that were self-incriminating.”
State v. McQueen & Hardyway, 582 P.2d 251 (Kan. 1978).
“” K.S.A. 22-3102 provides: “No person called as a witness at an inquisition shall be required to make any statement which will incriminate him.”
State v. Turner, 250 P.3d 286 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
“court began by examining K.S.A. 22-3102 which provided: “No person called as a witness at an inquisition shall be required to make any statement which will incriminate him.”
Governmental Ethics Comm'n v. Cahill, 594 P.2d 1103 (Kan. 1979).
“22-3008 relating to grand juries and K.S.A. 22-3102 relating to inquisitions. The appellant asserts this demonstrates a legislative intent that K.”
State v. Martin, 660 P.2d 563 (Kan. 1983).
“Owens, District Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial District of Kansas, pursuant to the authority vested in me by K.S.A. 22-3102, hereby grant Marcus L. Crawford immunity from prosecution or punishment on account of any transaction or matter contained in any statement or about…”
— K.S.A. § 22-3102(a) — 1 case
State v. Carapezza, 272 P.3d 10 (Kan. 2012).
“, K.S.A. 22-3102. The statute begins by declaring that “[n]o person called as a witness at an inquisition shall be required to make any statement which will incriminate such person.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3102(b) — 1 case
State v. Carapezza, 272 P.3d 10 (Kan. 2012).
“, K.S.A. 22-3102. The statute begins by declaring that “[n]o person called as a witness at an inquisition shall be required to make any statement which will incriminate such person.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3102(b)(2) — 1 case
State v. Carapezza, 272 P.3d 10 (Kan. 2012).
“, K.S.A. 22-3102. The statute begins by declaring that “[n]o person called as a witness at an inquisition shall be required to make any statement which will incriminate such person.”
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.