STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN LEIGHTON, A/K/A JOCK LEIGHTON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the presence of investigators during an interrogation rendered it not an 'official proceeding' for perjury charges.
[1] An interrogation conducted by a State Attorney, with investigators present, can constitute an "official proceeding" for the purposes of a perjury charge.
[2] The presence of investigators during a sworn interrogation by a State Attorney does not, as a matter of law, disqualify the interrogation from being an "official proceedi…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was subpoenaed to testify in a State Attorney's investigation, signed a waiver of immunity, and was questioned under oath by the State Attor…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Official Proceeding cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
The trial court dismissed an Information charging the defendant with perjury by falsely swearing in an official proceeding.
We reverse. The proceeding in question was an investigation by the State Attorney’s Office to which defendant was subpoenaed to testify. He made certain statements which formed the basis for a subsequent Information charging perjury under § 837.02, Fla.Stat. On motion of the defendant the trial court dismissed the Information holding that the presence of State Attorney investigators made the interrogation not an “official proceeding” as is required under the Statute. In so holding the trial court relied upon McCoy v. State, 338 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
McCoy involved a situation where the defendant had been subpoenaed to testify in a State Attorney’s investigation. The actual interrogation upon which the charge of perjury was based took place at the police station, solely at the hands of the police. This is not the situation presented here. In the instant situation the defendant appeared, signed a waiver of immunity and made no objection to the subpoena. The questioning was carried out by the State Attorney after putting the defendant under oath. The State Attorney was present at all times. Two investigators on the State Attorney’s staff were also present during this interrogation and these investigators asked certain questions.
We do not decide, as a matter of law, whether this procedure constituted an “official proceeding” within the meaning of the statute. It will be up to the State to prove all of the elements of an official proceeding in the eventual trial. However, we do hold that the trial court was incorrect in ruling as a matter of law that the mere presence of investigators participating in the interrogation resulted in the interrogation not being an official proceeding. The order dismissing the Information is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consisted herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LETTS, J., and KAPNER, LEWIS, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schramm v. State, 374 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…on. An interrogation which is conducted solely at the hands of the police at a police station is simply not an official proceeding within the definition of the statute. See McCoy v. State, 338 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) and Cf. State v. Leighton, 365 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Thus, if Schramm is guilty of an offense involving false statements, it must be an offense provided for in Section 837.-0123 or 837.05,4 Florida Statutes (1977). Since Schramm’s statements were not made during an official procee…
-
Nessmith v. State, 472 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ment that the state failed to prove the offense by the oath of two persons or the oath of one person with corroboration. But the state was also required to prove that Nessmith made the false statements in an “official proceeding.” State v. Leighton, 365 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). We hold that the state failed to carry its burden on this essential element. The trial court correctly followed the perjury statutes in finding as a matter of law that the alleged false statements were material to determining w…1 / 2
-
Sevin v. State, 478 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…on. An interrogation which is conducted solely at the hands of the police at a police station is simply not an official proceeding within the definition of the statute. See McCoy v. State, 338 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) and Cf. State v. Leighton, 365 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Thus, if Schramm is guilty of an offense involving false statements, it must be an offense provided for in Section 837.012 or 837.05, Florida Statutes (1977). Since Schramm’s statements were not made during an official proceedin…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McCOY v. State, 338 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)