Steigler v. Insurance Company of North America

306 A.2d 742, 1973 Del. LEXIS 353
CourtSupreme Court of Delaware
DecidedApril 24, 1973
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 306 A.2d 742 (Steigler v. Insurance Company of North America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Steigler v. Insurance Company of North America, 306 A.2d 742, 1973 Del. LEXIS 353 (Del. 1973).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from denial by the Superior Court of a stay of further proceedings in this civil action, including all discovery, pending final determination of certain criminal actions brought against the appellant. Protection of his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is the basis of the appellant’s application.

The Opinion of the Court below appears at 300 A.2d 16 (Del.). Reference is made thereto for a statement of the facts and a more detailed statement of the contentions of the appellant. The factual statement may be supplemented by noting that all direct appeals from the judgments of conviction were resolved against the appellant by this Court, 277 A.2d 662, and by the United States Supreme Court, 408 U.S. 939, 92 S. Ct. 2872, 33 L.Ed.2d 760. The only pending proceedings to which the application for stay may be addressed are the re-sentencing and a collateral attack upon the judgments of conviction by federal habeas corpus proceedings.

The situation is governed by rules long established in this State: The privilege against self-incrimination is a personal one to be claimed by the party under oath, and not by his attorney. A party cannot avoid interrogation, in vacuuo, by merely stating that his answers may tend to incriminate him. It is for the Court to decide whether the question, after actually being put, is such that any direct answer thereto could reasonably be self-incriminatory. Mumford v. Croft, 8 Terry 464, 93 A.2d 506 (1952).

We find no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ford v. Telamon Corp.
Superior Court of Delaware, 2021
Banther v. State
823 A.2d 467 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 2003)
Brown v. State
729 A.2d 259 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1999)
Shaw v. Riverdell Hospital
376 A.2d 228 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
306 A.2d 742, 1973 Del. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steigler-v-insurance-company-of-north-america-del-1973.