Subpoenas duces tecum have generally been defined as the process to cause a witness to appear at a certain time and place to give testimony, and it compels the person to produce physical evidence such as books, papers, and other documents or tangible things relevant thereto. See generally Rice v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 1953 OK 143, ¶ 3, 257 P.2d 292, 293. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The privilege against self-incrimination is not limited to criminal prosecutions, but may be invoked in any proceeding if the evidence sought might tend to subject one to criminal responsibility. McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.Ct. 16, 17, 69 L.Ed. 158, 161 (1924); Rice v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 208 Okla. 440, 257 P.2d 292 (1953); Layman v. Webb, Okla. Cr. 350 P.2d 323, 332-333 (1960); Akers v. Fuller, 312 Ky. 502, 228 S.W.2d 29 (1950); 23 Am.Jur.2d, Depositions and Discovery, § 179, at 522; 58 Am.Jur., Witnesses, § 45, at 49. In Rice v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 208 Okla. 440, 257 P.2d 292 (1953), the State Board of Medical Examiners sought to enjoin Rice from practicing medicine without a license.

Both the deed and the agreement were introduced into evidence against the defendant. See also: Rice v. State Board of Medical Examiners, (1953) 208 Okla. 440, 257 P.2d 292, 335. The Layman case continues, quoting from Boyd v. United States, (1886) 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746, 752:

In Rice v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 208 Okla. 440, 257 P.2d 292, the Supreme Court had for consideration an action to enjoin defendant from alleged illegal practice of medicine. The District Court of Marshall County entered an order directing defendant to produce records in response to subpoena duces tecum, and defendant appealed.