Menut v. StateMenut v. State
Theodore Menut, convicted of murder, appealed and while that appeal was pending here he was twice called to testify in trials against one Christopher Clugston. On each occasion he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege, was granted immunity, refused to testify and was held in contempt. The two judgments of contempt are the subject of this consolidated appeal.
Appellant argues first that the immunity defined in Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), is not coextensive with the scope of the Fifth Amendment because it does not provide derivative use immunity. “[Ijmmunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination and therefore is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege.” Kastigar v. United States,
Next, appellant maintains that he could not be compelled to testify because he would not be immune from prosecution for perjury. It is true that a grant of immunity is not a license to perjure oneself. It is equally true, however, that a statement given under a grant of immunity may not itself be used to convict for perjury by inconsistent or contradictory statements. McDonald v. State,
We affirm the conviction and find no fault with either of the sentences imposed.
AFFIRMED.