CHARLES EDWARD BELL, 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.
Charles Edward Bell was convicted of perjury by contradictory statements under Florida law for allegedly making inconsistent statements about his business ownership. The appellate court reversed, holding that the statements were not necessarily contradictory because they could be reconciled if the partnership dissolved between the two occasions.
The court held that the statements were not necessarily contradictory or inconsistent. Because Bell did not explicitly state on June 10 that he had no partner on April 30, the statements could be reconciled if the partnership dissolved between those dates. Therefore, the information failed to state a crime, and the conviction must be reversed.
[1] A conviction for perjury by contradictory statements requires that the statements be truly contradictory or inconsistent with each other.
[2] If a defendant's statements concern the existence of a partnership at different points in time, the statements are not necessarily contradictory if the partnership could…
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“The falsity of the statement is ordinarily an essential element of perjury. Gordon v. State, Fla. 1958, 104 So. 2d 524. The statute insures proof of falsity by requiring that the statements be contradictory or inconsistent with each other. If one statement contradicts another, it follows that at least one must be false.”
Establishes that proof of falsity is essential to perjury and the statute requires contradictory statements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 30, 1974, Bell testified in a criminal trial that Jim Hamilton was his partner and that he had always had a partner in the 'Book Broker' busi…
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 By Contradictory Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for perjury by contradictory statements pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 837.021 (1973).
The information charged that appellant “ . . . did wilfully make two or more contradictory or inconsistent material statements in one or more trials or in vestigations regarding the ownership of or interest in a certain business in Pinel-las County, Florida, known as ‘Book Broker’, said statements being under oath or affirmation pursuant to requirement or authorization of law and one or more of said statements are false, in that on the 30th day of April, 1974, CHARLES E. BELL did testify in the trial of State of Florida vs Charles B. Bell, Criminal Number 74-2666 as follows : Question: Who is Jim Hamilton? (by Mr. Carr) Answer: He’s a partner of mine. (by Charles E. Bell) Question: Now . . . you never owned a hundred percent? (by Cr. Casesa)
Answer: No. (by Charles E. Bell)
Question: . . . . This affidavit does not mention any partner? (by Mr. Casesa)
Answer: I don’t own the store myself, I always had a partner. (by Charles E. Bell) and he did further testify on June 10, 1974, in the investigation of State of Florida vs Richard Calvin Yeater, Circuit Criminal Number 74-2909, as follows : Question: Do you own ‘Book Brokers’? (by Mr. Osborne) Question: Do you have a partner in with you? (by Mr. Osborne)
Answer: No, the store is in my name only. (by Charles E. Bell)
Question: You have no partner? (by Mr. Osborne)
Answer: No. (by Charles E. Bell)”
The falsity of the statement is ordinarily an essential element of perjury. Gordon v. State, Fla. 1958, 104 So. 2d 524. The statute insures proof of falsity by requiring that the statements be contradictory or inconsistent with each other. If one statement contradicts another, it follows that at least one must be false.
Therefore, it is essential to the commission of the crime charged in this case that the statements are truly contradictory. The statements allegedly made by appellant as set forth in the information are not necessarily contradictory or inconsistent with each other.
On April 30, 1974, appellant is quoted as saying that he had a partner in his business on that date and had always had a partner in the business.
On June 10, 1974, appellant is quoted as saying that he did not have a partner in his business. He is not quoted as saying on June 10, 1974, that he did not have a partner on April 30, 1974. If the partnership were dissolved between April 30, 1974, and June 10, 1974, the statements would be entirely consistent. Since the information wholly failed to state a crime, appellant’s motion to dismiss should have been granted. See State v. Taylor, Fla.App.4th, 1973, 283 So. 2d 882; cf. Hepburn v. Chapman, 1933, 109 Fla. 133, 149 So.
196.
REVERSED.
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gordon v. State, 104 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1958)
- Hepburn v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1933)
- Martinez v. State, 283 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)