State ex rel. Nothum v. Walsh
2012 Mo. LEXIS 164
Mo.2012Background
- Judgment debtor Arizona Bank obtained a judgment against David and Glenette Nothum and registered it in Missouri; court ordered debtor’s examination under §513.380 to locate assets; an immunity letter (use immunity) was issued by the county prosecutor under §513.380.2; Nothums invoked privilege and were held in contempt after refusing to answer; court later held immunity coextensive with privileges and ordered further examination; appellate writs issued, leading to this prohibition proceeding; the majority concludes §513.380.2 provides only use immunity and is not coextensive with the privilege; court grants permanent writ prohibiting compelled testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §513.380.2 grants only use immunity | Nothums: statute provides broader immunity | Bank: language implies transactional/derivative immunity | Use immunity only; not coextensive |
Key Cases Cited
- Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (U.S. 1972) (use and derivative use immunity coextensive with privilege)
- Munn v. McKelvey, 733 S.W.2d 765 (Mo. banc 1987) (prosecutor authority to grant immunity depends on statute; use/derivative distinction)
- Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U.S. 71 (U.S. 1920) (immunity not coextensive with Fifth Amendment where broader protection is needed)
- State ex rel. Rowland Group, Inc. v. Koehr, 831 S.W.2d 930 (Mo. banc 1992) (review of contempt order and statutory interpretation context)
- State ex rel. Munn v. McKelvey, 733 S.W.2d 765 (Mo. banc 1987) (authority to grant immunity and scope considerations)