RAYMOND ARGYROS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court held that the allegedly perjurious statements were not material to the issues in the underlying will contest case.
Raymond Argyros was convicted of perjury for allegedly making false statements in a deposition concerning who was present at the execution of certain …
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 Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Raymond Argyros challenges his perjury conviction on two grounds: first, that the State failed to prove that every allegedly perjurious statement was false; and, second that the State failed to prove that any of the alleged perjuries were material. The second contention has merit, and we reverse Mr. Argyros’ conviction. Because our resolution of this issue is dispositive, we need not address Mr. Argyros’ first contention.
The State charged Mr. Argyros, an attorney, with making three false statements in a deposition and further alleged that those statements were material to the issues of testamentary capacity or undue influence in a wills contest case. The statements concerned who was present at the execution of certain documents. The physical ability of the testator to sign the will was also in issue. We conclude, however, that none of the allegedly perjurious statements were material to resolution of any issue in the will contest.
To sustain a perjury conviction, the State must prove “that such testimony was material to the issue upon which the trial was had.” Rader v. State, 52 So. 2d 105, 108 (Fla.1951). To be material, the challenged testimony must have “weight and reference to determination of an issue.” Smith v. State, 92 So. 2d 411, 413 (Fla.1957). Mr. Ar-gyros’ allegedly perjurious statements did not meet that standard. Further, the questions that elicit a sworn response should be stated in an affirmative manner with appropriate specificity. See Smith, 92 So. 2d at 413. The question Mr. Argyros was asked— “okay, for all the documents?” — does not satisfy this criterion.
Accordingly, we reverse with instructions to grant Mr. Argyros’ motion for directed verdict and to discharge him.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raphael Cohen v. State, 985 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…at. (1999). See also Hirsch v. State, 279 So. 2d 866, 869 (Fla.1973). The questions posed to elicit perjured testimony must be asked with the appropriate specificity necessary to result in an equally specific statement of fact. See Argyros v. State, 718 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). To present a prima facie case, the prosecution must prove each and every element of an offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. When the prosecution fails to meet this burden, the case should not be submitted to the jury, and a…
-
Roslyn Vargas v. State, 795 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…on empirical fact. In addition, the questions posed to elicit the allegedly perjured testimony were, in all three counts, not asked with the appropriate specificity necessary to result in an equally specific statement of fact. See Argyros v. State, 718 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); see also Doyle, 713 So. 2d at 1046, citing to Bronston v. U.S., 409 U.S. 352, 362, 93 S.Ct. 595, 602, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973)(“[p]recise questioning is imperative as a predicate for the offense of perjury.”). Indeed, in the stateme…
-
State v. Diaz, 785 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…y into or the search of Ramos’ apartment, or his arrest, and, as such, would have no effect on any determination as to those issues. Thus, the statements could not mislead the court and thwart justice. See Wolfe, 271 So. 2d at 132; Argyros v. State, 718 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Soller v. State, 666 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Nor do the statements tend' to impeach the testimony of any of the state’s witnesses or to bolster defendants’ own' credibility. The listed statements do not- affect any witnes…
Authorities Cited
- Rader v. State, 52 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1951)
- Peoples Water & GAS Co. v. Webb, 92 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1957)