B.B., APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 a juvenile cannot be held in criminal contempt for perjury when the record does not support a finding of untruthful testimony or a conflict between testimony and a prior statement.
A juvenile witness, B.B., testified at a hearing for another individual charged with battery. Following the hearing, the trial court found B.B. in 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 Adjudicatory Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
B.B., a juvenile, appeals from an order adjudicating her in contempt of court for committing perjury. We reverse.
C.R. was charged with battery upon J.A. At C.R.’s adjudicatory hearing, B.B., a witness to the alleged battery, testified. Following the hearing, the trial court ordered B.B. to show cause why she should not be held in criminal contempt of court for “committing perjury by knowingly offering untruthful testimony while testifying” at the adjudicatory hearing.
B.B. responded by asserting that she had not perjured herself at C.R.’s adjudicatory hearing. Further, at the hearing on the Rule to Show Cause, B.B. testified that she did not lie. Following the hearing, the trial court entered an order finding that B.B.’s testimony at C.R.’s adjudicatory hearing was inconsistent with the written statement that she gave to the police. The trial court ordered that B.B. be held in criminal contempt of court “based on her untruthful testimony” at C.R.’s adjudicatory hearing “and her handwritten statement.” This appeal followed.
B.B. contends that the trial court erred by finding her in criminal contempt of court. We agree.
The record does not support the trial court’s finding that B.B. either testified untruthfully at C.R.’s adjudicatory hearing or that there was a conflict between B.B.’s written statement and her testimony at C.R.’s adjudicatory hearing. Therefore, we reverse the order under review. See M.L. v. State, 819 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Reversed.