The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
Governor DeSantis's reading also ignores the common usage of "each other." Merriam-Webster explains that "[e]ach other and one another are used interchangeably by good writers and have been since at least the 16th century." Each Other , Merriam-Webster, (emphasis deleted) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/each% 20other (last visited Sep. 9, 2021). It should come as no surprise that the Florida Legislature has also used the terms interchangeably in other statutes—but in violation of the technical grammar rule the Governor cites. See § 732.703(3)(i), Fla. Stat. (stating "the decedent and that person are married to one another"); § 837.021(1), Fla. Stat. (addressing "two or more material statements ... which contradict each other"). All this is to say that a person of ordinary intelligence will not look at the statute and think, "ah ha! the statute says ‘each other,’ not ‘one another,’ it's all clear now." But see ECF No. 120 at 4 (arguing that, had the Legislature "used the reciprocal pronoun ‘one another,’ " it would have "rendered the statute ambiguous").Despite the officer's intention, Nieves could not have been convicted of perjury by contradictory statements as it requires that both statements be made in one or more official proceedings. See§ 837.021(1), Fla. Stat.; see also Sevin v. State, 478 So.2d 521, 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (holding that contradictory statements made under oath to police officer during criminal investigation was not an official proceeding); Schramm v. State, 374 So.2d 1043, 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (holding that an interrogation conducted solely at the hands of the police is not an official proceeding within the statutory definition).In his final claim, Duckett contends that section 837.021, Florida Statutes (1997), which proscribes perjury by contradictory statement, is invalid. As stated above, Gurley, who testified at trial, invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege at the evidentiary hearing on Duckett's initial postconviction motion. See Duckett II, 918 So.2d at 232. Duckett argues that the fear of a felony perjury conviction caused Gurley to invoke the privilege, which in turn violated his right to due process. Therefore, he argues that section 837.021 is invalid. The postconviction court denied the claim, noting that the issue was untimely raised and improperly pleaded because Duckett failed to explain why it was not raised previously. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.851(e)(2)(C)(iv). We agree that the claim was not timely raised and is procedurally barred and affirm the postconviction court's denial of the claim.In his final claim, Duckett contends that section 837.021, Florida Statutes (1997), which proscribes perjury by contradictory statement, is invalid. As stated above, Gurley, who testified at trial, invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege at the evidentiary hearing on Duckett's initial postconviction motion. See Duckett II, 918 So.2d at 232. Duckett argues that the fear of a felony perjury conviction caused Gurley to invoke the privilege, which in turn violated his right to due process. Therefore, he argues that section 837.021 is invalid. The postconviction court denied the claim, noting that the issue was untimely raised and improperly pleaded because Duckett failed to explain why it was not raised previously. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.851(e)(2)(C)(iv). We agree that the claim was not timely raised and is procedurally barred and affirm the postconviction court's denial of the claim. III. CONCLUSIONAfter the violation hearing, the state attorney's office charged the alleged victim with and obtained a conviction for perjury based on her statements connected to the domestic battery incident and at the subsequent violation of probation hearing. It is unclear from the record before us whether she was prosecuted for a violation of section 837.021, Florida Statutes (2008), felony perjury by contradictory statements; section 837.012, Florida Statutes, misdemeanor perjury when not in an official proceeding; or section 837.05, Florida Statutes, misdemeanor false reports to law enforcement authorities. Based on the record before us, it appears that the alleged victim was never charged with a violation of section 837.02, Florida Statutes, felony perjury in official proceedings for making a false statement at the VOP hearing.Spivey asserts that counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the trial court's alleged error of omitting elements two and three of the perjury charge from the jury instructions. Section 837.021, Florida Statutes, describes the jury instruction for elements two and three of perjury by contradictory statements:Based upon these asserted inconsistencies and contradictions, Benihana moved for dismissal of the second amended complaint with prejudice. The trial court held a hearing (at which no live testimony was offered) and granted Benihana's motion to dismiss, finding clear and convincing evidence that Appellants “jointly and collusively engaged in a scheme designed to prevent the trier from impartially adjudicating this matter through lies, misrepresentations, contradictory statements and otherwise hiding the truth.” The court also found that Appellants' contradictory statements “rise[ ] to the level of perjury in official proceedings (Section 837.02, Florida Statutes) and perjury by contradictory statements (Section 837.021, Florida Statutes).” Finding that Appellants had perpetrated a fraud upon the court, the court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice.the State Attorney's Office acted maliciously and with such gross misconduct when they committed Fraud and Perjury F.S.A. 837.021 against the Petitioner in this case in order to prosecute him [and] that they violated his Constitutional rights to liberty and due process of law.The witnesses' first concern is that they might be subject to prosecution for perjury by contradictory statements if they provide sworn testimony at a deposition that materially differed from their earlier statements under oath. This concern is unfounded, provided that their compelled testimony is truthful. Section 914.04 generally prohibits the use of such testimony in any criminal investigation or proceeding against the witness. More specifically, section 837.021(4), provides that a person may not be prosecuted for making contradictory statements if the contradictory statement made in the most recent proceeding was made under a grant of immunity under section 914.04.To give the postconviction court better guidance on remand, we briefly discuss these factors. First, the postconviction court should consider the nature of the potential perjury liability that might arise from the witness's prospective testimony. For example, two types of perjury liabilities are relevant in this case: perjury in official proceedings, which penalizes false statements knowingly made under oath in an official proceeding, and perjury by contradictory statements, which penalizes two or more material statements made in official proceedings and under oath that contradict each other. See §§ 837.02, 837.021, Fla. Stat. (2004). A witness who admits testifying falsely might be liable for perjury in official proceedings. Furthermore, a witness who testifies regarding the inconsistency between an affidavit or deposition and testimony at Wickham's trial might face liability for perjury by contradictory statements.. . . See § 837.021(1), Fla. Stat.; see also Sevin v. . . .
. . . trial witness recanted her testimony requires that Duckett be granted a new trial; and (D) section 837.021 . . . Validity of Perjury Statute In his final claim, Duckett contends that section 837.021, Florida Statutes . . . Therefore, he argues that section 837.021 is invalid. . . .
. . . It is unclear from the record before us whether she was prosecuted for a violation of section 837.021 . . . The investigator claimed the victim was charged with a violation of section 837.021, perjury by contradictory . . . instead of citing section 837.012, for perjury not in an official proceeding, it should be section 837.021 . . .
. . . official proceedings (Section 837.02, Florida Statutes) and perjury by contradictory statements (Section 837.021 . . .
. . . thereby, exposing them to prosecution for perjury by contradictory statements in violation of section 837.021 . . . More specifically, section 837.021(4), provides that a person may not be prosecuted for making contradictory . . .
. . . official proceedings and by contradictory statements in violation of Florida Statues §§ 837.02 and 837.021 . . . Corrigenda at Exh. 5 ¶¶ 23, 25, 28, alleging violations of Fla Stats. §§ 817.034(4)(a) and (b), 837.02 and 837.021 . . .
. . . . § 837.021(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). . . .
. . . Similarly, section 837.021, Florida Statutes, defines perjury by contradictory statements as “whoever . . .
. . . . § 837.021, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . .
. . . See § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1993); § 837.021, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .
. . . Florida Statutes (1989), and in count II with perjury by contradictory statements in violation of section 837.021 . . .
. . . December 1, 1989, Feagle committed perjury by inconsistent statements (Count I), in violation of section 837.021 . . . Section 837.021(3), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that “[i]n any prosecution for perjury by inconsistent . . . or intent concerning the contradictory statements is relevant and material, however, because section 837.021 . . . the state could not prove Feagle 1) willfully made contradictory statements in violation of section 837.021 . . .
. . . charging the appellee with one count of perjury by inconsistent statements in violation of section 837.021 . . . State, 52 So.2d 105 (Fla.1951); § 837.021, Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .
. . . CATEGORY 2 Perjury if official proceeding — 837.02 None None Perjury by contradictory statements — 837.021 . . .
. . . . § 837.021, Fla.Stat. (1983). (1) Whoever, in one or more official proceedings, willfully makes two . . .
. . . Appellant was charged with perjury by contradictory statements, a violation of section 837.021, Florida . . . statements of appellant were under oath, we pass to the broader issue of whether prosecution under section 837.021 . . . Moreover, prior to its amendment by the enactment of chapter 74-383, Laws of Florida (1974), section 837.021 . . . Prior to the 1974 amendment, section 837.021 prohibited perjury by contradictory statements when made . . . Sections 53 and 56 of chapter 74-383 amended section 837.021 to prohibit contradictory statements when . . .
. . . of immunity prohibits the use of those immunized statements in subsequent prosecution under section 837.021 . . .
. . . perjury by making contradictory statements under oath in an official proceeding, in violation of section 837.021 . . .
. . . The state charged Fowler with a violation of section 837.021, Florida Statute (1981), perjury by contradictory . . . A GRANT OF IMMUNITY IN PROSECUTION (a) FOR PERJURY BY LATER CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 837.021 . . . of immunity prohibits the use of those immunized statements in subsequent prosecution under section 837.021 . . .
. . . convicted of perjury by contradictory sworn statements in official proceedings in violation of Section 837.021 . . .
. . . The state then charged Fowler with perjury by contradictory statements in violation of section 837.021 . . . The Doe case mandates dismissal of the information charging Fowler with a violation of section 837.021 . . . A GRANT OF IMMUNITY IN PROSECUTION (a) FOR PERJURY BY LATER CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 837.021 . . .
. . . See § 837.021(2), Fla.Stat. (1981); Wolfe v. State, 271 So.2d 132 (Fla.1972). . . . .
. . . recantation is less justified than once it might have been in light of the passage in 1972 of Section 837.021 . . .
. . . any subsequent criminal proceedings for perjury by inconsistent statements in violation of section 837.021 . . . given by them proved to be inconsistent with any earlier testimony, the criminal sanctions of section 837.021 . . . an inadvertent inconsistent statement which would subject them to criminal prosecution under section 837.021 . . . previously made by them under oath in 1974 and 1975 as a basis for prosecution of them under section 837.021 . . .
. . . The State counters that Sherman, supra, and section 837.021(1), Florida Statutes, have effectively abolished . . . As to the State’s contention that section 837.021(1), has effectively abolished the defense of recantation . . . This Court cannot find, and does not believe, the Legislature by enacting section 837.021(1) ever intended . . . State [354 So.2d 597] wherein a closely divided Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 837.021 . . . In doing so, we specifically hold that section 837.021(1), Florida Statutes, has not abolished the defense . . .
. . . This is an appeal from a conviction of perjury by contradictory statements under Section 837.021, Florida . . . Section 837.021(3), Florida Statutes (1977); Brown v. State, 334 So.2d 597 (Fla.1976). . . .
. . . dismiss an information charging her with perjury by contradictory statements in violation of Section 837.021 . . .
. . . Upon the advice of counsel that he would be subject to prosecution under Section 837.021, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . Thus, she was amenable to a charge of perjury by contradictory statements under Section 837.021, Florida . . .
. . . Perjury by contradictory statements, as set forth by Section 837.021, Florida Statutes 1975, consists . . .
. . . perjury in a judicial proceeding, F.S. 837.02, and one count of perjury by contradictory statements, F.S. 837.021 . . . AS TO COUNT H Count II is dismissed because F.S. 837.021 is unconstitutional as applied to this case, . . . aspect of compulsion of his testimony by the state through the unconstitutional process inherent in §837.021 . . . yields his precious birthright and swears he believed each statement true at the time he made it, §837.021 . . . since the jury need not find which of the statements is false because the state need not prove it, §837.021 . . .
. . . This is an appeal from an adjudication of guilt under Section 837.021, Florida Statutes (perjury by inconsistent . . . This variance in Brown’s story led to his subsequent indictment and conviction under Section 837.021, . . . While the constitutionality of Section 837.021, Florida Statutes, has not been the subject of a reported . . . It is asserted that the term “inconsistent statements” appearing in subsection (1) of 837.021, Florida . . . Effective July 1, 1975, Section 837.021(1), Florida Statutes, was changed to read as follows: “Whoever . . . Sec. 837.021(4), F.S.1973. . . . of willfulness, in its classic sense of volition and intent informed by knowledge, was attached by § 837.021 . . . common experience no justification for such a melancholy view, I would hold that the presumption of § 837.021 . . . Section 837.021, Florida Statutes, constitutes an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment to . . .
. . . information which charges the giving of contradictory statements under oath in violation of Section 837.021 . . .