Christie Wilson v. State of Indiana, 988 N.E.2d 1211

Wilson was charged with burglary, theft, receiving stolen property, and habitual offender in Cause No. 88D01-1204-FB-257; other related charges existed in Cause No. 88D01-1204-FB-256.
Wilson pled guilty to theft and receiving stolen property in September 2012, with other charges dismissed, resulting in a six-year aggregate sentence.
In November 2012 the State sought and obtained use immunity for Wilson in Cause No. 256; the order stated that evidence may not be used against her unless certain exceptions applied.
A deposition occurred the same day; Wilson asserted Fifth Amendment and Indiana constitutional rights, with counsel indicating protections were too narrow and would not answer involved questions.
The State moved for contempt; the trial court found Wilson in contempt on November 30, 2012, and issued purge-and-serve consequences requiring truthful deposition testimony by December 14, 2012.
Wilson appealed from the December 5, 2012 contempt order, arguing the contempt finding was erroneous because she was asserting protected rights rather than willfully disobeying the order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in contempt ruling?	Wilson contends she did not willfully violate the order, only asserted rights.	State argues contempt was proper for willful disobedience of a valid order.	No abuse; contempt affirmed
Is this court's jurisdiction moot because of appeal timing on immunity order?	Wilson challenges the merits and seeks review of immunity if properly raised.	State asserts lack of timely appeal on the immunity order bars merits review; appeal of contempt stands.	Court retains jurisdiction to review contempt and related immunity questions; affirmed

City of Gary v. Major, 822 N.E.2d 165 (Ind. 2005) (void-order rule; remedy is appeal, not contempt)
Witt v. Jay Petroleum, Inc., 964 N.E.2d 198 (Ind. 2012) (contempt for TRO; appealability and procedural timing)
Carson v. Ross, 509 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (remedy for erroneous order is appeal; contempt for disobedience)
Crowl v. Berryhill, 678 N.E.2d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (contempt remedy for erroneous orders; appeal required)
In re S.H., 984 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. 2013) (impugning witness-immunity framework; balance of compulsion and immunity)
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) (immunity must be coextensive with privilege; use and derivative use immunity)
In re Caito, 459 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind. 1984) (Indiana constitutional protections vs. use/derivative use immunity; framework for immunity types)
Meyer v. Wolvos, 707 N.E.2d 1029 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (burden on party to show non-willfulness of violation)