NEIL BOLEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Neil Bolen was convicted of perjury for allegedly giving false testimony about whether he had conversations with jurors in an unrelated case. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction because the information failed to allege that the false statement was material to the issues being tried, which is an essential element of perjury.
The conviction must be reversed because the information fails on its face to allege that the matter about which Bolen allegedly testified was material to the issues being tried. Materiality of the alleged false statement is an essential element of perjury that must be alleged and proven to sustain a conviction.
“Materiality of the alleged false statement is an essential element of the crime of perjury which, in order to sustain a conviction, must be alleged and proven.”
Establishes that materiality is a required element of perjury that must be both alleged in the information and proven at trial.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBolen was convicted of perjury. The information alleged that Bolen falsely testified under oath about whether he had conversations approximately three…
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 Materiality Of False Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
In this ease the plaintiff in error was convicted of 'the crime of perjury. The information is lengthy. It is alleged in effect therein that after a jury was empaneled in a certain cause “it then and there became and was a material question whether or not the said NEIL BOLEN did approximately three months prior to the trial aforesaid, have a conversation with two jurors who were then and there regularly sworn to try the issues in the said case of the State of Florida against Tyree C. Whitehurst, as aforesaid, the said jurors being Louis Kemp and James T. Yerby, with reference to the *23guilt or innocence of the said Tyree C. "Whitehurst, and as to whether or not the said jurors Louis Kemp and James T. Yerby had expressed an opinion and had become prejudiced as to the guilt of the said Tyree 0. Whitehurst from the reading of newspaper articles, and the said NEIL BOLEN, being so sworn as aforesaid, then and there upon the trial of said issues, on his oath as-aforesaid, falsely, eorruptliy, knowingly, wilfully and maliciously, before the said jurors aforesaid, and before the Honorable W. Raleigh Petteway, Judge presiding over said court as aforesaid, did depose and swear concerning said material question in substance and to the effect following,” etc.
The Information shows on its face that the matter about which it is alleged that the defendant falsely testified was not material to the issues then being tried before the-Court. It could Make no difference as to the guilt or in-no cense of Tyree C. Whitehurst whether this defendant heard or did not hear two of the jurors named in the Information express an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the said Whitehurst. Materiality of the alleged false statement is an essential element of the crime of perjury which, in order to sustain a conviction, must be alleged and proven. Yarborough vs. State, 79 Fla. 256, 83 Sou. 873, and eases there cited.
A s' this ease mjust be reversed for the reasons above stated, it is not necessary to consider other assignments-of error. It is so ordered.
Reversed.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morriss Wolfe v. State, 271 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1972)…erted for review by certiorari of the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal at 256 So. 2d 533 (Fla.App.3d 1972) with our holdings in Henderson v. State, 20 So. 2d 649 (Fla.1945); Rader v. State, 52 So. 2d 105 (Fla.1951), and Bolen v. State, 103 Fla. 22, 137 So. 8 (1931). Fla.Const, art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A. We find conflict with Henderson wherein we used language directed to an instruction which we stated “invaded the province of the jury to the extent of taking from it the determination of every el…
-
Rodie Rivers v. State, 121 Fla. 887 (Fla. 1935)…f the crime of perjury which, in order to sustain a conviction, must be alleged and proved.” See Yarborough v. State, 79 Fla. 256, 83 South. Rep. 873; Tindall v. State, supra; D’Alessandro v. State, 116 Fla. 749, 156 South. Rep. 702; Bolen v. State, 103 Fla. 22, 137 South. Rep. 8. It is apparent that the fact of the presence of Rodie Rivers, the accused, in the same room with the two men when one struck the other with a knife is in no manner material to the question whether the act of the man who struck t…
-
D'Alessandro v. State, 116 Fla. 749 (Fla. 1934)…nary hearing unless a charge is first made against the acused of an act which constitutes' a criminal offense. • It is well settled that the materiality of the alleged false testimony is an essential element of the crime of perjury. Bolen v. State, 103 Fla. 22, 137 Sou. 8; Yarbrough v. State, 79 Fla. 256, 83 Sou. 873; Fields v. State, 94 Fla. 490, 114 Sou. 517; Tindall v. State, 99 Fla. 1132, 128 Sou. 494. For testimony to be material it must have some weight and reference to the determination of an issu…
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
- Yarbrough v. State, 79 Fla. 256 (Fla. 1920)