ROBIN LEE DANIELS, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE THOMAS E. KIRKLAND, CIRCUIT JUDGE, IN AND FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
A defendant who received transactional immunity under Florida Statute 914.04 for testifying under an investigative subpoena seeks prohibition to prevent prosecution for burglary charges. The court holds that the defendant's receipt of immunity is not waived by perjury during that testimony, and immunity from prosecution for the burglaries is affirmed, but immunity does not extend to false statements made during the investigation.
The court holds that a defendant does not waive immunity by committing perjury during the investigative statement; the immunity granted under Florida Statute 914.04 protects against prosecution for the transactions testified about (the burglaries). However, immunity does not extend to prosecution for false official statements made during the investigation itself.
[1] A person compelled to testify under an investigative subpoena is granted transactional immunity from prosecution for any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which th…
[2] Transactional immunity granted under Florida Statute 914.04 does not apply to prosecution for making a false statement during the compelled investigation.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The State is not obligated to use this Statute, but once it elects, ahd testimony or other evidence is compelled, immunity from penalty or prosecution is afforded to the witness.”
Establishes that once the State invokes the immunity statute and compels testimony, immunity automatically attaches to the witness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobin Lee Daniels was charged with two counts of burglary and a misdemeanor of false official statement in Orange County, Florida. Daniels had been se…
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 Investigative Subpoena cases and more on FLexlaw
UPCHURCH, Judge.
This is an original proceeding on suggestion for Writ of Prohibition which raises questions under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1977).
Robin Lee Daniels had been charged with burglary in two counts by information filed in the Circuit Court of Orange County. He had also been charged in the County Court of that County with the misdemeanor of false official statement. By order dated July 20, 1979, the felony charges and the misdemeanor were consolidated in the Circuit Court for trial.
Petitioner Daniels, by motion, sought to have all charges dismissed on the grounds that he had been granted immunity under Florida Statute 914.04. He had been served by the State Attorney with an investigative subpoena and required to testify concerning the burglaries with which he was subsequently charged.
Prohibition is ordinarily an appropriate remedy in these circumstances. Tsavaris v. Scruggs, 360 So. 2d 745 (Fla.1977). The State contends that it is not appropriate because petitioner perjured himself and therefore transactional immunity never attached.
Two questions are presented. First, does the defendant by committing perjury during the investigative statement thereby waive the immunity granted by the Statute? Second, does the immunity also apply to the perjury?
At the time of filing the information in the Circuit Court, petitioner had not been convicted of perjury, or the misdemeanor, false official statement. Section 914.04 is specific:
. no person, having been duly served with a subpoena . . ., shall be excused from attending and testifying ., but no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or an account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may so testify or produce evidence,
The Assistant State Attorney acknowledges that he advised Daniels that having been served with an investigative subpoena he was required to testify, but that he would be immune from prosecution.
If we accept the State’s position, Daniels would be tried in a single trial for the burglaries revealed by the investigation and the official false statement made during that investigation. The jury could possibly conclude that petitioner was guilty of the burglaries, but innocent of the false statement. In that event, there should have been no prosecution because there was no perjury and therefore, no waiver. The State is not obligated to use this Statute, but once it elects, ahd testimony or other evidence is compelled, immunity from penalty or prosecution is afforded to the witness.1 This immunity does not apply to prosecution for false statement made during that investigation. Gordon v. State, 104 So. 2d 524, 532 (Fla.1958).
As to the burglaries charged by the State in the information filed June 19, 1979, which burglaries were alleged to have occurred between January 17, 1979 and January 20, 1979, the petitioner has been immunized from prosecution; therefore, we must issue our Writ of Prohibition and require the trial court to enter judgment for the petitioner on those charges. We decline to prohibit prosecution for the charge of false official statements because no immunity attached as to that alleged misconduct. Writ of Prohibition is issued and we remand this cause for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Writ of Prohibition issued.
DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs.
CROSS, J., dissents without opinion.
. State ex rel. Foster v. Hall, 230 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Weir, 380 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…did give testimony concerning the precise transaction which gave rise to the charges against him, the terms of the statute seem, on their face, rather clearly to apply. See, e. g., Lorenzo v. Blackburn, 74 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1954); Daniels v. Kirkland, 379 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); State v. [*1299] Brodski, 369 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The state vigorously argues, however, citing such cases as Tsavaris v. Scruggs, 360 So. 2d 745 (Fla.1977); Orosz v. State, 334 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) and State…
-
Virgie Fowler v. State, 447 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…the immunity which was intended to protect the witness from past indiscretions. Gordon v. State, 104 So. 2d 524 (Fla.1958); State v. Daniels, 400 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA), petition for review denied, 411 So. 2d 381 (Fla.1981); Daniels v. Kirkland, 379 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The 1981 grant of immunity did not free Fowler to perjure herself. However, it did preclude the state from using that compelled testimony against her in any other criminal proceeding. McDonald v. State, 321 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th…
-
State v. Daniels, 400 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…(1979), and thereby to grant him “transactional immunity” from prosecution for the subject matter of his responses. We disagree. The result in this case is dictated by a prior decision of this court involving these matters. In Daniels v. Kirkland, 379 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), we ruled that Daniels could not be prosecuted for burglary charges, which was the subject matter of Daniels’ statement. However, we held that the immunity afforded pursuant to section 914.04 did not preclude prosecution for any…
Authorities Cited
- Gordon v. State, 104 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1958)
- Tsavaris v. Scruggs, 360 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1977)
- State of Fla. ex rel. R. D. Foster v. Honorable W. Troy Hall, Jr., 230 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)