Jaramillo v. State

URBIGKIT, Chief Justice.

This appeal determines whether a trial judge is required to inform an immunized witness of the consequences of refusal to testify before charging and convicting that individual of criminal contempt.1

In her appeal, appellant Michele Jar-amillo claims that “[t]he trial court’s failure to adequately inform appellant of the nature and effect of a finding of criminal contempt warrants a reversal of the contempt judgment.” She also challenges that “[t]he trial court’s failure to provide appellant with the entire record as designated by appellant’s attorney constitutes a…