Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 837.021 (2025)

Perjury by contradictory statements.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

837.021 Perjury by contradictory statements.—

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever, in one or more official proceedings, willfully makes two or more material statements under oath which contradict each other, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) Whoever, in one or more official proceedings that relate to the prosecution of a capital felony, willfully makes two or more material statements under oath which contradict each other, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) In any prosecution for perjury under this section:

(a) The prosecution may proceed in a single count by setting forth the willful making of contradictory statements under oath and alleging in the alternative that one or more of them are false.

(b) The question of whether a statement was material is a question of law to be determined by the court.

(d) It is a defense that the accused believed each statement to be true at the time the statement was made.

(4) A person may not be prosecuted under this section for making contradictory statements in separate proceedings if the contradictory statement made in the most recent proceeding was made under a grant of immunity under s. 914.04; but such person may be prosecuted under s. 837.02 for any false statement made in that most recent proceeding, and the contradictory statements may be received against him or her upon any criminal investigation or proceeding for such perjury.

History.—s. 1, ch. 72-314; s. 56, ch. 74-383; s. 34, ch. 75-298; s. 2, ch. 85-41; s. 4, ch. 97-90; s. 1312, ch. 97-102.

Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 837.021

M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd

§837.021(1)PERJURYCONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGF · 3rd

§837.021(2)PERJURYPROSECUTION CAP FELONY CONTRADICT STATEMENTSF · 2nd

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 35 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Brown v. State, 334 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brown v. State, 334 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1976). · cites it 16× “This is an appeal from an adjudication of guilt under Section 837.021, Florida Statutes [1] (perjury by inconsistent statement), in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.”

Carter v. State, 384 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1980). · cites it 7× “The defense contends that defendant recanted his false or erroneous testimony and therefore a perjury prosecution cannot be sustained under Brannen, supra.”

State v. Feagle, 600 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). · cites it 8× “Because the record before the trial court did not show conclusively that the state could not prove Feagle 1) willfully made contradictory statements in violation of section 837.021, Florida Statutes (1989), and 2) failed to recant, disputes of material fact existed when the…”

James Aren Duckett v. State of Florida, 148 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. 2014). · cites it 5× “For the reasons explained below, we affirm the circuit court’s summary denial of relief of Duckett’s successive postconviction motion.”

State v. Moore, 485 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1986). · cites it 2× “" § 837.021(3), Fla. Stat. (1981). Accordingly, we reword the question to read: IS A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION WHEN THE PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT IS THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE OF GUILT? For the reasons which follow, we answer…”

Arzuman v. Saud, 843 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 837.021(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). A dismissal of claims for fraud on the court should be limited to those claims to which the fraud pertained.”

Suarez v. Benihana Nat'l of Florida Corp., 88 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). · cites it 2× “” The court also found that Appellants’ contradictory statements “rise[ ] to the level of perjury in official proceedings (Section 837.”

The Florida Bar v. Doe, 384 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1980). · cites it 5× “These grants purport to immunize *32 Doe and Roe from criminal prosecution for prior perjury or for the use of their prior testimony in any subsequent criminal proceedings for perjury by inconsistent statements in violation of section 837.021, Florida Statutes (1977).”

Tafero v. State, 406 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). · cites it 2× “We observe that this concern about the trustworthiness of post-trial recantation is less justified than once it might have been in light of the passage in 1972 of Section 837.021, Florida Statutes. That statute authorizes prosecution for perjury by proof of two contradictory…”

State v. Mitrani, 19 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). · cites it 3× “At the hearing held on the State’s motion, the witnesses, through counsel, argued that they should not be compelled to provide testimony because their compelled testimony would likely be inconsistent with their earlier sworn statements, thereby, exposing them to prosecution for…”

McCoy v. State, 338 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). · cites it 2× “Perjury by contradictory statements, as set forth by Section 837.021, Florida Statutes 1975, consists of two or more material statements being wilfully made under oath during one or more official proceedings which, in fact, contradict each other.”

Jaffe v. State, 438 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). · cites it 2× “See § 837.021(2), Fla. Stat. (1981); Wolfe v.”

Show all 35 citing cases →

— 837.021(1) — 5 cases

Carter v. State, 384 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1980). “The defense contends that defendant recanted his false or erroneous testimony and therefore a perjury prosecution cannot be sustained under Brannen, supra.”

Arzuman v. Saud, 843 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “§ 837.021(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). A dismissal of claims for fraud on the court should be limited to those claims to which the fraud pertained.”

State v. Feagle, 600 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “Because the record before the trial court did not show conclusively that the state could not prove Feagle 1) willfully made contradictory statements in violation of section 837.021, Florida Statutes (1989), and 2) failed to recant, disputes of material fact existed when the…”

Brown v. State, 334 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1976). “This is an appeal from an adjudication of guilt under Section 837.021, Florida Statutes [1] (perjury by inconsistent statement), in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.”

Octavius Ware v. State of Florida, 159 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

— 837.021(2) — 2 cases

Jaffe v. State, 438 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). “See § 837.021(2), Fla. Stat. (1981); Wolfe v.”

State v. Ellis, 723 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1998).

— 837.021(3) — 4 cases

State v. Moore, 485 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1986). “" § 837.021(3), Fla. Stat. (1981). Accordingly, we reword the question to read: IS A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION WHEN THE PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT IS THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE OF GUILT? For the reasons which follow, we answer…”

Mitchell v. State, 359 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

State v. Stocksdale, 44 Fla. Supp. 191 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Leon Cty. 1976).

— 837.021(4) — 2 cases

State v. Mitrani, 19 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). “At the hearing held on the State’s motion, the witnesses, through counsel, argued that they should not be compelled to provide testimony because their compelled testimony would likely be inconsistent with their earlier sworn statements, thereby, exposing them to prosecution for…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.