By the common law, a witness cannot be obliged to criminate himself, and may therefore refuse to testify to any facts which will tend to prоve him guilty of a crime. But his refusal must be made at the beginning of his examinatiоn upon the issue whether a crime has been committed by him. If he answers any questions upon that subject, he cannot afterwards interpose his privilege, but is liable to be fully examined "and cross-examined upon the matter. Foster v. Pierce,
A party to the cause, who voluntarily offers himself аs a witness, is entitled to no more, and in some respects to less, protection than a third person who testifies in obedience to a summons. A party taking the stand as a witness in his own behalf may be
The twelfth article of the Declaration of Rights, prefixеd to the Constitution of the Commonwealth, declares that no subjeсt shall be compelled to answer or furnish evidence against himsеlf. The recent statutes allowing a person accused of сrime to testify upon his trial, (which he could not do at common law,) provides, in order to secure this constitutional privilege, that he “ shall, at his own request, but not otherwise, be deemed a competent witness,” and that his neglect or refusal to testify shall not create аny presumption against him. Sts. 1866, c. 260; 1870, c. 393, § 1, cl. 3. The object of these statutes is not to рrotect or assist criminals, but to promote the discovery of truth, so far as can be done without infringing the constitutional rights of the subject. If thе accused chooses not to be a witness, he cannot be compelled to testify, and no inference prejudicial tо him is to be drawn from his silence. Commonwealth v. Harlow,
Exceptions overruled.
