JOSEPH A. GONZALEZ, ALSO KNOWN AS JOSEPH GUNNE, 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.
Joseph Gonzalez appeals his conviction for three counts of perjury committed before the 1966 Dade County Grand Jury. The appellate court affirms the conviction, rejecting arguments regarding grand jury composition, disclosure of grand jury testimony, and sufficiency of evidence.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that Brady v. Maryland does not apply to grand jury testimony, Florida law keeps grand jury records secret, no abuse of discretion occurred in the in camera review, and sufficient independent and corroborating evidence supported the perjury conviction.
“Generally, Grand Jury records and proceedings in Florida are secret and they may only be disclosed for certain purposes and under certain procedures.”
Establishes the confidential nature of grand jury proceedings under Florida law, rejecting the defendant's Brady claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGonzalez was convicted in Criminal Court of Dade County on three counts of perjury for statements made before the 1966 Dade County Grand Jury. The tri…
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 Corroborating Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Joseph A. Gonzalez, also known as Joseph Gunne, appeals from his conviction in the Criminal Court of Dade County, Florida, on three counts of perjury alleged to have been committed before the 1966 Dade County Grand Jury.
He has raised five points for reversal on appeal.
The first two points raised by appellant deal with the composition of the Dade County Grand Jury and have been decided adversely to him by the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. Demetree, Fla.1968, 213 So.2d 709.
He argues that reversible error was committed when the trial judge refused to compel the state to disclose to him certain testimony or evidence presented to the Grand Jury. He contends that this is reversible error under the authority of Brady *394v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
Generally, Grand Jury records and proceedings in Florida are secret and they may only be disclosed for certain purposes and under certain procedures. See Fla. Stat. §§ 905.17; 905.24; 905.27, F.S.A. The Brady case, supra, was not concerned with the disclosure of testimony before a Grand Jury.
Apparently, the trial court made an in camera examination of the Grand Jury testimony sought to be elicited by the defendant and refused to grant the same.
The record does not reveal that any evidence was withheld from the defendant which was material either to his guilt or to his punishment and we are not inclined to the view that the evidence referred to in Brady is applicable to testimony presented before a Grand Jury. No abuse of discretion has been shown by the court in this regard. See Jackman v. State, Fla.App. 1962, 140 So.2d 627; State v. Tillett, Fla. App.1959, 111 So.2d 716.
The defendant further contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove the defendant guilty of perjury. He relies on Ward v. State, 83 Fla. 311, 91 So. 189 (1922) ; Yarbrough v. State, 79 Fla. 256, 83 So. 873 (1920); and Keir v. State, 152 Fla. 389, 11 So.2d 886 (1943). Generally, the offense of perjury must be proven by the oaths of two witnesses or by the oath of one witness and other independent and corroborating circumstances which are deemed of equal weight to the testimony of another witness. Page v. State, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 304. A review of the record indicates that there were sufficient, independent and corroborating circumstances and evidence ' to sustain the conviction for perjury as to the falsity of the defendant’s statements before the Grand Jury.
We have examined the last point raised by the appellant for reversal and find it to be without merit. See Tindall v. State, 99 Fla. 1132, 128 So. 494 (1930); 41 Am.Jur. Perjury § 20.
For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment appealed be and the same is hereby
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
James v. Wille, 480 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…it is in the furtherance of justice to do so. The statute does not require a trial court to order such disclosure, but only permits it to do so. Whether or not so to order must therefore be discretionary with the trial court. In Gonzalez v. State, 220 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), a convicted perjury defendant contended it was reversible error under [*255] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), for the trial court to refuse to compel the state to disclose to him certain testi…
Authorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Keir v. State, 152 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1943)
- Will Tindall v. State, 99 Fla. 1132 (Fla. 1930)
- Yarbrough v. State, 79 Fla. 256 (Fla. 1920)
- Jackman v. State, 140 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Ward v. State, 83 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1922)
- State v. Boone D. Tillett, Jr., 111 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- State v. Demetree, 213 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1968)
- Page v. State, 130 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)