Whenever a witness, including a child as defined in § 14-1-3, refuses, on the basis of his or her privilege against self-incrimination, to answer
a question or to produce other evidence of any kind in a criminal proceeding before
any court or grand jury of this state, the attorney general may, in writing, request
the presiding justice of the superior court or the chief judge of the family court
or the district court to order the witness to answer the question or produce the evidence.
The court, in its discretion, after notice to the witness, may order the witness to
answer the question or produce the evidence. The witness may not refuse to comply
with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but the witness
shall not be prosecuted or subjected to penalty or forfeiture for, or on account of,
any transaction or matter regarding which, in accordance with the order, he or she
gave answer or produced evidence and no testimony or other information compelled under
the order or any information directly or indirectly derived from the testimony or
other information shall be used against the witness in any criminal case, except he
or she may be prosecuted or subjected to penalty or forfeiture for any perjury, false
swearing, or contempt committed in answering or failing to answer, or in producing
or failing to produce evidence, in accordance with the order. No court order directing
a witness to answer a question or to produce evidence issued pursuant to this section
shall operate to vacate, modify, or otherwise prevent the enforcement of any conviction,
judgment, or sentence entered by any court against the witness prior to the grant
of immunity, unless the order entered pursuant to this section expressly provides
for it.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2022 · leading case:
Ferrell v. Wall, 889 A.2d 177 (R.I. 2005).
Ferrell v. Wall, 889 A.2d 177 (R.I. 2005).
· cites it 10× “The law of immunity in Rhode Island is codified at G.L.1956 § 12-17-15, and is applicable only in criminal proceedings.”
State v. Ramirez, 936 A.2d 1254 (R.I. 2007).
· cites it 3× “G.L.1956 § 12-17-15. 7 See State v. Clark, 576 A.”
State v. Paquette, 369 A.2d 1096 (R.I. 1977).
· cites it 9× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §12-17-15, as enacted by P. L. 1969, ch. 54, §1.”
In Re Denisewich, 643 A.2d 1194 (R.I. 1994).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 12-17-15, as amended by P.L.1986, ch. 513, § 1, gave testimony that is the subject matter at issue in the instant case.”
State v. Ahmadjian, 438 A.2d 1070 (R.I. 1981).
“1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 12-17-15, as enacted by P.L. 1969, ch. 54, § 1, which provides, in part: “In any criminal proceeding * * * if a person refuses to answer a question or produce other evidence of any kind on the ground that he may be incriminated thereby, and if the…”
Coolbeth v. Berberian, 354 A.2d 120 (R.I. 1976).
· cites it 2× “3 The appointment was made in the event that it became necessary to grant immunity to any witness pursuant to the provisions of §12-17-15. Given the language of this section, which refers exclusively to criminal pro *195 ceedings, arguably this appointment put Berberian on…”
State v. Anthony, 448 A.2d 744 (R.I. 1982).
“First, he points out that unlike most sworn statements, Fairhurst’s account is not worthy of the usual inference of reliability afforded testimony delivered under oath because the transactional immunity conferred upon him also embraced any possible perjury charge that might…”
State v. Clark, 576 A.2d 1202 (R.I. 1990).
“1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 12-17-15, as amended by P.L.1986, ch. 513, § 1.”
State v. Russell, 671 A.2d 1222 (R.I. 1996).
“1956 (1994 Reenactment) § 12-17-15 and may only be granted to a witness who is compelled to testify by the presiding justice of the Superior Court, the chief judge of the Family Court, or the chief judge of the District Court upon application by the Attorney General.”
State v. Hasney, 341 A.2d 729 (R.I. 1975).
“II The defendant’s next contention is that she was entitled to immunity or to a privilege prohibiting the use *216 of her compelled testimony. She conceded dhring oral argument here that she was not entitled to the statutory immunity provided in G.”
State v. Deric S. McGuire (R.I. 2022).
· cites it 2× “See G.L. 1956 § 12-17-15 (“[T]he attorney general may, in writing, request the presiding justice of the superior court * * * to order the witness to answer the question or produce the evidence.”
State v. LaChappelle, 511 A.2d 296 (R.I. 1986).
· cites it 5× “1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 12-17-15, as amended by P.L. 1981, ch. 243, § l.”
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.