Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 59
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5941 (2026)

  Persons who may be compelled to testify.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

 

 

CERTAIN PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

§ 5941.  Persons who may be compelled to testify.

(a)  General rule.--Except defendants actually upon trial in a criminal proceeding, any competent witness may be compelled to testify in any matter, civil or criminal; but he may not be compelled to answer any question which, in the opinion of the trial judge, would tend to incriminate him; nor may the neglect or refusal of any defendant, actually upon trial in a criminal proceeding, to offer himself as a witness, be treated as creating any presumption against him, or be adversely referred to by court or counsel during the trial.

(b)  Judgment debtor.--A judgment debtor may be compelled to answer all pertinent questions at any examination concerning his property, but he shall not 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, except for perjury in giving such testimony.

(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1984–2015 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa. 2008). · cites it 4× “"It is well settled that any comment by the prosecution or the court violates [42 Pa.C.S. § 5941] if it `... draws attention to or focuses on the fact that no one except the defendant can rebut the Commonwealth's case.”
Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 634 A.2d 1078 (Pa. 1993). “5; 42 Pa.C.S. § 5941(a). The privilege against self incrimination has no direct application to a determination of the proper sentence to be imposed because the presumption of innocence which accompanies the accused throughout the proceedings to determine his guilt has no direct…”
Commonwealth v. Torres, 477 A.2d 1350 (Pa. 1984). · cites it 2× “— Except defendants actually upon trial in a criminal proceeding, any competent witness may be compelled to testify in any matter, civil or criminal; but he may not be compelled to answer any question which, in the opinion of the trial judge, would tend to incriminate him; nor…”
Commonwealth v. Rasheed, 572 A.2d 1232 (Pa. 1990). · cites it 2× “[3] 42 Pa.C.S. § 5941(a) provides: (a) General rule.”
Commonwealth v. McGrogan, 532 A.2d 1203 (Pa. 1987). · cites it 2× “" 42 Pa.C.S. § 5941(a) [emphasis added]. Further, the United States Supreme Court has noted that "[t]he trial judge in appraising the [Fifth Amendment] claim must be governed as much by his personal perception of the peculiarities of the case as by the facts actually in evidence.”
Commonwealth v. Wesley, 753 A.2d 204 (Pa. 2000). “2d 715, 717 (1973); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 5941(a) (preventing a trial judge or counsel from adversely referring to a defendant's failure or refusal to testify).”
Commonwealth v. Yabor, 546 A.2d 67 (Pa. 1988). “nderscores the duty of the trial judge to make the determination as to *364 the validity of the claim: “Except defendants actually upon trial in a criminal proceeding, any competent witness may be compelled to testify in any matter, civil or criminal; but he may not be compelled…”
Fine v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 694 A.2d 364 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997). “Because any competent witness, except the defendant in a criminal proceeding, may be compelled to testify pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5941(a), PennDOT could have called Licensee to testify in its case in chief or in proper rebuttal.”
Commonwealth v. Brown, 583 A.2d 805 (Pa. 1990). · cites it 2× “*330 Furthermore, the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5941(a) addresses the issue of testimonial privilege: Except defendants actually upon trial in criminal proceedings, any competent witness may be compelled to testify in any matter, civil or criminal; but he may not be compelled…”
Commonwealth v. Doolin, 24 A.3d 998 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011). “I, § 9; 42 Pa.C.S. § 5941(a). 2 . By granting Doolin’s motion to dismiss, the trial court's order disposes of all charges made by the Commonwealth and serves to put the litigants out of court, thus making the order final.”
Leek v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 746 A.2d 1171 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 5941(a). 7 Although not directly on point with the instant case, this Court’s recent decision in Fine illustrates that the Bureau may call Licensee as a witness in its case-in-chief.”
City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5, 521 A.2d 517 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987). “42 Pa. C. S. §5941. Thus, in Commonwealth v.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5941(a) — 12 cases
Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa. 2008). “"It is well settled that any comment by the prosecution or the court violates [42 Pa.C.S. § 5941] if it `... draws attention to or focuses on the fact that no one except the defendant can rebut the Commonwealth's case.”
Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 634 A.2d 1078 (Pa. 1993). “5; 42 Pa.C.S. § 5941(a). The privilege against self incrimination has no direct application to a determination of the proper sentence to be imposed because the presumption of innocence which accompanies the accused throughout the proceedings to determine his guilt has no direct…”
Commonwealth v. Torres, 477 A.2d 1350 (Pa. 1984). “— Except defendants actually upon trial in a criminal proceeding, any competent witness may be compelled to testify in any matter, civil or criminal; but he may not be compelled to answer any question which, in the opinion of the trial judge, would tend to incriminate him; nor…”
Commonwealth v. Rasheed, 572 A.2d 1232 (Pa. 1990). “[3] 42 Pa.C.S. § 5941(a) provides: (a) General rule.”
Commonwealth v. McGrogan, 532 A.2d 1203 (Pa. 1987). “" 42 Pa.C.S. § 5941(a) [emphasis added]. Further, the United States Supreme Court has noted that "[t]he trial judge in appraising the [Fifth Amendment] claim must be governed as much by his personal perception of the peculiarities of the case as by the facts actually in evidence.”
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.