Commonwealth v. Bolger

Citations

• 42 Pa. Super. 115
• 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 300

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Self-incriminating testimony — Grand jury.</p> <p>1. To entitle a party called as a witness to the. privilege of silence the court must see, from the circumstances of the ease and the nature of the evidence which the witness is called to give, that there is reasonable ground to apprehend danger to the witness from his being compelled to answer; although if the fact of the witness being in danger be once made to appear, great latitude should be allowed to him in judging for himself of the effect of any particular question.</p> <p>2. No possible infringement of the privilege of silence can be predicated of the facts that one is subpoenaed to appear as a witness before a lawful tribunal and examined on oath. The only purpose and effect of the subpoena are to enforce the performance of this duty and procure the desired attendance. It is only when he is called upon actually to testify as to self-incriminating facts that he can set up his privilege.</p> <p>3. A person who has testified before a grand jury may be indicted before the same grand jury.</p> <p>4. Where a person has been indicted on presentation of the grand jury before which he himself testified, he cannot successfully allege that he was deprived of his constitutional privilege of silence, unless he shows by specific averments that he had asserted his constitutional privilege at a time an assertion was proper, and should have been effective, and that the protection secured to him by the constitution was denied.</p> <p>Trial — Jury-—Reading evidence to jury — Practice, C. P.</p> <p>5. A trial judge cannot be convicted of reversible error because, in answer to a request made by the jury, he permits their recollection to be refreshed by reading a portion of the testimony actually delivered on the trial, concerning which some misapprehension had arisen in the minds of the jury after they had retired.</p>