STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT J. BARBUTO, 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.
Florida appeals the trial court's dismissal of three perjury charges against Robert Barbuto, who allegedly made false and inconsistent statements during a deposition and trial testimony. The appellate court reverses, holding that the statements were material as a matter of law because they had the potential to affect credibility and the resolution of issues before the court.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the statements were material as a matter of law. Statements have the requisite materiality for perjury prosecution if they have the mere potential to affect the resolution of a main or secondary issue before the court, and misrepresentations tending to bolster witness credibility satisfy this standard.
[1] A false statement is material for purposes of a perjury conviction if it has the potential to affect the resolution of a main or secondary issue before the court.
[2] Misrepresentations that tend to bolster the credibility of a witness are considered material for purposes of a perjury conviction.
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 intelligence“In order to obtain a conviction for perjury, or for perjury by inconsistent statements, it is necessary that the false testimony be material.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement for perjury prosecution
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarbuto was a defense witness in a criminal case. During his deposition and trial testimony, he made statements about his involvement in a federal cri…
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 Perjury In An Official Proceeding cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Chief Judge.
The State of Florida challenges a trial court order dismissing three perjury charges filed against the appellee, Robert J. Barbuto. We reverse.
The state filed an information charging the appellee with one count of perjury by inconsistent statements in violation of section 837.021, Florida Statutes (1987), and two counts of perjury in an official proceeding in violation of section 837.02, Florida Statutes (1987). The appellee filed a motion to dismiss the charges on the ground that the statements in question were not material.
The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the charges. The state filed a timely notice of appeal. The charges in this case arose out of a deposition and trial testimony in a criminal case. The appellee was a defense witness in that matter. The state alleged in count I of the information that during the taking of the appellee’s deposition he made statements concerning his involvement in a federal crime that were inconsistent with the guilty plea he entered in federal court and with testimony he presented at a trial in which he was a defense witness. In count II of the information, the state alleged that the appellee made false statements during his deposition when he testified he was not guilty of the federal offense. Count III of the information alleged that the appellee made a false material statement concerning a state witness while giving testimony in a trial.
In order to obtain a conviction for perjury, or for perjury by inconsistent statements, it is necessary that the false testimony be material. State v. Marlow, 501 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
We agree with the state’s contention that the statements referred to in the information were material. The question of the materiality of a statement in a perjury case is generally a question of law. Rader v. State, 52 So. 2d 105 (Fla.1951); § 837.021, Fla.Stat. (1987).
The statements in this case tended to impeach one of the state’s witnesses and to bolster the appellee’s own credibility. A misrepresentation is material if it has the mere potential to affect the resolution of a main or secondary issue before the court. Kline v. State, 444 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), pet. for rev. denied, 451 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1984).
Misrepresentations which tend to bolster the credibility of a witness, whether successful or not, have that potential and are regarded as material for purposes of a perjury conviction. Kline.
The trial court, therefore, erred in dismissing the charges filed against the appellee.
We, accordingly, reverse and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.
DANAHY and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Soller v. State, 666 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…he state failed to show that the false statement was “in regard to any material matter.” § 837.02(1), Fla. Stat. (1993) ,1 The determination of whether a false statement is “in regard to any material matter” is a question of law. State v. Barbu-to, 571 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); see also § 837.011(3). In Barbuto, the perjury charge arose out of conflicting statements Barbuto made as a witness for a criminal defendant. Barbuto stated in Ms deposition that he was not guilty of a particular federal offense;…
-
State v. Diaz, 785 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…state’s witnesses or to bolster defendants’ own' credibility. The listed statements do not- affect any witness’ credibility as to the consent issue. See Soller, 666 So. 2d at 992; 15A Fla.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 4176 (1993). Compare State v. Barbuto, 571 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)(defendant’s false statements as to his involvement in a federal crime and concerning a state witness and statements were material as statements tended to bolster- his credibility and impeach state witness); Kline v. State, 444 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Rader v. State, 52 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1951)
- State v. Marlow, 501 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Layton v. State, 444 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Milton v. Kline, 444 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)