Court Opinion

ID: 9897076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:06:43.171484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:20.567147
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                  STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                       Case No. 5D23-0846
                   LT Case No. 2021-CF-4602-A
                  _____________________________

OREN MILLER,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                  _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County.
Anthony M. Tatti, Judge.

Dock A. Blanchard, of Blanchard, Merriam, Adel, Kirkland &
Green, P.A., Ocala, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P.
Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.

                         November 9, 2023

SOUD, J.

    Oren Miller appeals his perjury conviction stemming from a
sworn statement he gave to the State Attorney’s Office
investigating allegations that Miller violated Florida’s Sunshine
Laws during his service on the Sumter County Commission. We
have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P.
9.030(b)(1)(A). We reverse, concluding that Miller’s statements—
viewed as a whole—are insufficient as a matter of law to support
a conviction for perjury.

                                  I.

      Miller was elected to the Sumter County Commission shortly
after the August 2020 primary and took office the following
November. For Miller—a then-seventy-year-old retiree from Joliet,
Illinois with no prior criminal record—this election represented his
first foray into politics.

    Thereafter, the State Attorney’s Office for the Fifth Judicial
Circuit received three complaints of Sunshine Law violations
centered on allegations that Miller’s wife served as a conduit for
communications between Miller and other commissioners, as well
as Miller’s alleged failure to maintain public records relating to his
use of Facebook. As part of the State Attorney’s investigation,
Miller was subpoenaed to give a sworn statement, which he
provided on October 6, 2021.

     During the sworn statement, Miller was asked numerous
questions about phone calls he had with another county
commissioner, Gary Search. Based on cell phone records it had
obtained, the State Attorney and his representatives inquired
about both the substance and the timing of phone calls as it related
to relevant meetings of the Sumter County Commission.
Questioning focused on calls that took place after Miller had taken
office in November and in his “official capacity.”

     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

                                  2
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.” 1

     Ultimately, Miller was charged via information with one
count of Perjury in an Official Proceeding. 2 Following trial, he was
found guilty as charged. Miller was adjudged guilty and sentenced
to the time served of seventy-five days in jail followed by three
years of probation. This appeal followed.

                                 II.

     We review this case to determine if there is competent,
substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict finding Miller
guilty of perjury. See Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 2020). In
doing so, we “‘view[ ] the evidence in the light most favorable to the
State’ and, maintaining this perspective, ask whether ‘a rational
trier of fact could have found the existence of the elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. at 200 (citations omitted);
see also Peoples v. State, 251 So. 3d 291, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
(“In our review of the sufficiency of the evidence, all evidence is
viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and all inferences
are interpreted in favor of the verdict.” (citation omitted)).

                                 A.

     Section 837.02, Florida Statutes, provides, “whoever makes a
false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under
oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter,
commits a felony of the third degree . . . .” § 837.02(1), Fla. Stat.
(2021). Thus, Florida law is clear that to commit the felony offense
of perjury in an official proceeding, not only must the statement
made under oath be false, but the one making the statement must
“not believe [the statement] to be true.” Id.

    1 Miller remained insistent throughout his statement that he

never discussed commission business during any phone call.
    2 Miller was not charged in this case with violating Florida’s

Sunshine Laws.

                                  3
     In accordance with the perjury statute, to prove Miller guilty
of perjury, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that he (1) made a false statement, (2) that he did not believe
was true, (3) under oath in an official proceeding, and (4) regarding
any material matter. See id.; see also Hirsch v. State, 279 So. 2d
866, 869 (Fla. 1973); Cohen v. State, 985 So. 2d 1207, 1209 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2008); Vargas v. State, 795 So. 2d 270, 272 (Fla. 3d DCA
2001).

     The materiality of the statement is not an element of the
crime to be proven to the jury. As used in the perjury statute,
“‘[m]aterial matter’ means any subject, regardless of its
admissibility under the rules of evidence, which could affect the
course or outcome of the proceeding. Whether a matter is material
in a given factual situation is a question of law.” § 837.011(3), Fla.
Stat. (emphasis added). Accordingly, materiality is a threshold
issue that must be determined by the court as a matter of law prior
to trial. See Vargas, 795 So. 2d at 272; see also Soller v. State, 666
So. 2d 992, 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).3

                                 B.

   Miller’s sworn statement, when viewed as a whole, is not so
demonstrably false as to support a conviction for perjury.

                                  1.

     The information alleges Miller committed perjury when “he
stated there were no telephone conversations between him and

    3  We reject Miller’s claim that his statements were not
material. “To be material, statements must be germane to the
inquiry, and have a bearing on a determination in the underlying
case.” Parris v. State, 359 So. 3d 1178, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023),
rev. denied, No. SC2023-0818, 2023 WL 6620379 (Fla. Oct. 11,
2023) (quoting Vargas, 795 So. 2d at 272). However, “[i]t is not
essential that the false testimony bear directly on the main issue.
It is sufficient if the false testimony is collaterally or
corroboratively material to the ultimate material fact to be
established.” Parris, 359 So. 3d at 1189 (quoting Gordon v. State,
104 So. 2d 524, 531 (Fla. 1958)).

                                  4
Sumter County Commissioner Gary Search after January 2021,
that OREN MILLER knew to be false and untrue, in violation of
Florida Statute 837.02(1).” Of course, “the State must prove the
allegations set up in the information or the indictment.” Lewis v.
State, 53 So. 2d 707, 708 (Fla. 1951); see also Banasik v. State, 889
So. 2d 916, 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (quoting Lewis).

     Reviewing the entirety of the sworn statement made by Miller
to investigating authorities, it cannot be said he in fact definitively
claimed that there were no phone calls with Commissioner Search
after January 2021. Indeed, quite the contrary.

     While questions from representatives of the State Attorney’s
Office at times summarize Miller’s prior answers as definitively
stating there were no calls after January, Miller’s statement
viewed as a whole makes clear he was not so precise. Rather,
Miller’s entire statement indicates the calls stopped between
January and March 2021 or “somewhere in there.” Miller even goes
as far to acknowledge phone calls in March 2021 by saying, “Yes, I
promise you we had phone calls.” 4

     Given this context of Miller’s entire statement, “[i]t cannot be
said with any degree of certainty by a fair reading of all of [Miller’s
statement], that the two challenged answers can be considered
perjurious in the full context of his testimony.” Wolfe v. State, 271
So. 2d 132, 135 (Fla. 1972). To hold otherwise would permit the
trial court and the jury to divorce two answers from the remainder
of Miller’s statement. This Florida law does not allow. “A charge of
perjury may not be sustained by the device of lifting a statement
of the accused out of its immediate context and thus giving it a
meaning wholly different than that which its context clearly
shows.” Id. (quoting Van Liew v. United States, 321 F.2d 674 (5th
Cir. 1963)).

                                  2.

    Even assuming arguendo Miller definitively and falsely stated
that there were no calls after January as alleged, Miller may

    4 Miller never denied the occurrence of any phone call about

which he was asked.

                                  5
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.” Parris, 359 So. 3d at
1187 (quoting McAlpin v. Crim. Just. Stds. & Training Comm’n,
155 So. 3d 416, 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)).

     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.

    A judicial investigation or trial has for its sole object the
    ascertainment of the truth, that justice may be done. It
    holds out every inducement to a witness to tell the truth
    by inflicting severe penalties upon those who do not. This
    inducement would be destroyed if a witness could not
    correct a false statement except by running the risk of
    being indicted and convicted for perjury. 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.

Brannen v. State, 114 So. 429, 431 (Fla. 1927) (internal quotations
and citations omitted).

     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.

                                 III.

     Accordingly, since Miller’s sworn statement viewed as a whole
is insufficient to support the perjury conviction, we REVERSE the
judgment and sentence, VACATE Miller’s conviction, and REMAND

                                  6
with instructions that the trial court enter a judgment of not guilty
in favor of Miller.

    It is so ordered.

JAY and KILBANE, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                 7