[blueash]

OREN MILLER vs STATE OF FLORIDA :: 2023 :: Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal Decisions :: Florida Case Law :: Florida Law :: US Law :: Justia

"In response to leading questions, Miller twice acknowledged that no calls occurred after January. However, prior to those questions, Miller made clear his uncertainty as to precisely when calls with Search ceased. Specifically, Miller stated the phone calls ended “about the first two or three months” after he and Search took office in November 2020, or “maybe three or four months.” Thus, by Miller’s reckoning, the calls stopped between January and March 2021 or “somewhere in there.”Later in the sworn statement, Miller did not dispute that he received a phone call from Search in February, though he could not remember what they discussed. Further still, when asked about a phone call with Search in March 2021, Miller stated, that while he could not remember what they discussed, “[y]es, I promise you we had phone calls"

The appeals court excoriates the prosecution of the case for not understanding Florida law citing exactly what is required to support a charge and conviction for perjury.

"Even assuming Miller definitively and falsely stated that there were no calls after January as alleged, Miller may correct or clarify his answer(s) during later questioning. “[A]n initially false statement ... can be further explained so that the statement taken as a whole is not perjury. Such correction or clarification is not only permitted—it is encouraged. Permitting an individual to clarify or correct prior false or erroneous statements advances the core of judicial functions—a just determination of cases based on applicable law and the truth born from evidence. Florida law has long recognized this enduring principle.

Further:

The law encourages the correction of erroneous and even intentionally false statements on the part of a witness, and perjury will not be predicated upon such statements when the witness, before the submission of the case, fully corrects his testimony.... Here, even if Miller was considered to have definitively and falsely stated that no calls occurred after January, his later answers corrected or clarified the uncertain timing of calls, including those made or received in February and March 2021. As a result, as a matter of law, Miller cannot be found guilty of perjury as charged in the information my bold

The court took a highly unusual step. Typically a court finds a trial error and sends it back for a retrial, correcting the error. But in this case the Court declared

we REVERSE the judgment and sentence, VACATE Miller’s conviction, and REMAND with instructions that the trial court enter a judgment of not guilty in favor of Miller.