200 Ky. 262 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1923
Opinion of the Court by
Reversing.
Appellant, Bessie L. Dunn, assigns two reasons for a reversal of a judgment of conviction against her for the offense of having in possession intoxicating' liquors not for medicinal, sacramental, scientific or mechanical purposes. They are:
(1) The evidence introduced for the Commonwealth was incompetent because obtained through and by means of a search warrant issued upon an insufficient affidavit; (2) appellant having been called as a witness by the Commonwealth in a companion case, involving the same facts in large part, was immune from prosecution, under section 6 of the prohibition act of 1922.
(1) While the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was not as full and complete as it should have been, it did set forth facts sufficient in our judgment to create in the mind of a reasonable person the opinion and belief that appellant had in her possession at that time intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes. The affidavit being sufficient, the search warrant issued thereon being in the usual form, was sufficient.
(2) The second contention presents a much more serious question. Mrs. Dunn lived in the city of Carlisle.
Section 6 of the prohibition act of 1922, reads:
“No witness before a grand jury, court of inquiry, or on a trial for any violation of this act, shall be permitted to refuse to answer any question because the answer will incriminate himself, but his evidence shall not be used against him in any subsequent proceedings, and such witness shall not be prosecuted for any offense disclosed in such testimony. ’ ’
This section of the act was considered by the court in the case of French, &c. v. Commonwealth, 198 Ky. 512.
Appellant claimed immunity under this statute. She entered a plea in bar. By that statute she is entitled to immunity from prosecution for ‘ ‘ any offense disclosed in such testimony.” She was asked by the Commonwealth as a witness concerning the offense committed in her house. She disclosed the whole matter in answers to questions asked her by the prosecuting attorney. Clearly this exonerated her from prosecution, and her plea in bar of prosecution entered at the time of the trial should
The judgment is reversed for proceedings consistent with this opinion.