State v. Rodriguez

The right against self-incrimination must be “invoked on a question-by-question basis,” and may only be waived by the court if the person testifying is given transactional immunity. Or Const, Art I, §12; State v. Tensbusch, 131 Or App 634, 640, 886 P2d 1077 (1994).

Defendant appealed a conviction for contempt of court after refusing to testify, with immunity, in City of Florence v. Jordan Howell. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s determination that (1) he could not assert his right against self-incrimination against any of the prosecution’s questions and (2) he could be forced to testify or face a charge of contempt for refusing. On appeal, Defendant argued that properly invoked his right against self-incrimination. In response, the State argued that his invocation was improper as a blanket invocation, not specific to any one question from the State. The right against self-incrimination must be “invoked on a question-by-question basis,” and may only be waived by the court if the person testifying is given transactional immunity. Or Const, Art I, §12; State v. Tensbusch, 131 Or App 634, 640, 886 P2d 1077 (1994). By denying Defendant his right against self-incrimination before hearing the State’s specific questions, the trial court effectively denied Defendant the opportunity to invoke his right on a question-by-question basis. Therefore, the Court concluded that Defendant could not be held in contempt because the trial court improperly denied him the opportunity to invoke his right against self incrimination on a question-by-question basis after denying his blanket invocation. Reversed.