Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State ex rel. Hudson v. Webber

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 9, 1980No. WD 31543Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWasserstrom, Chief Judge

I agree with the majority opinion in all respects except as to the last question (listed as No. 9 in the majority opinion), which was put to the witness. With respect to that one question, in my view, the witness has not shown an adequate basis for a privilege against testifying.

The Missouri cases have utilized two different tests in determining whether a witness is entitled to the privilege against self-incrimination. Some of the cases declare that if a question submitted to a witness is innocuous on its face, then the witness must assume the burden of proving why that question would tend to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. BrooksMissouri Court of Appeals · 1977
  2. State Ex Rel. Lee v. CavanaughMissouri Court of Appeals · 1967
  3. Cantor v. SaitzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1978
  4. State Ex Rel. Caloia v. WeinsteinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1975
  5. Presta v. OwsleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1961

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API