Carter v. State

Citation: 384 So. 2d 1255Docket: 56084

Court: Supreme Court of Florida; May 1, 1980; Florida; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

T.R. Carter, a licensed chiropractor, was charged with perjury in an official proceeding related to a civil suit filed by his patient, Carrie Jones Brunson, against Archie William Squibb and others for injuries sustained in an automobile accident on June 20, 1975. During a deposition on January 5, 1977, Carter testified under oath that he had not seen or treated Brunson prior to the accident, despite attorney Roy R. Watson's belief that he had treated her for a pre-existing condition. After the deposition, Carter provided a letter to Watson with a statement for services rendered, indicating multiple visitations to Brunson beginning June 6, 1974, and ending January 17, 1975. Although Watson did not pursue further deposition, Judge James R. Stewart, Jr., presiding over the civil trial, referred the case for criminal investigation, resulting in perjury charges against both Brunson and Carter. Carter filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the undisputed facts did not establish a prima facie case of guilt. The State responded, conceding the truth of the facts but arguing they still constituted a prima facie case of guilt. The hearing proceeded with both parties present.

The defense introduced Carter's deposition, a January 6, 1977 letter, and a January 18, 1975 statement for identification, which the Court treated as evidence. The defense argued that Carter recanted his false testimony, thus precluding a perjury prosecution under the precedent set by Brannen. The State countered that the Sherman case and Florida Statutes section 837.021(1) eliminated the recantation defense. The Court found no case law supporting the State's position and felt bound to follow Brannen, distinguishing it from Sherman, where recantation occurred in a separate proceeding. The Court emphasized that it does not matter if Carter was aware of the falsity of his original testimony; the law favors correction of erroneous statements before final case submission, thereby preventing perjury charges. The Court rejected the notion that section 837.021(1) intended to limit truth-seeking in judicial proceedings. Although Brown v. State upheld the constitutionality of that statute, it suggested that recantation cannot be a defense only as dicta. The Court ordered the dismissal of count two against Carter, a decision later reversed by the district court of appeal, which incorrectly suggested that recantation loses viability when the witness knows the falsehood will be revealed. The Court upheld that Carter's prompt and voluntary correction did not prejudice anyone or affect the proceedings, asserting that the fear of exposure should not undermine the recantation defense. Ultimately, the Court adopted the trial judge's order and the dissenting opinion of Judge Cross as correct.

Section 837.021(1) of the Florida Statutes does not eliminate the defense of recantation in perjury cases. The Fourth District Court of Appeal's opinion is quashed, and the trial judge's dismissal of the action is reinstated. Justice Alderman dissents, advocating for the district court's decision, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing Dr. Carter's motion. The dissent emphasizes the importance of encouraging witnesses to correct false statements, asserting that recantation is only a defense to perjury if it includes acknowledgment of the original falsehood, voluntary retraction, and a truthful new statement. Recantation is not valid if the false testimony has significantly influenced the proceedings or is likely to be exposed, as this would undermine the incentive to tell the truth. Alderman suggests that factual issues regarding the intent behind Dr. Carter's false testimony and subsequent recantation are matters for a jury to decide, rather than being resolved through a motion to dismiss. The excerpt also references principles of justice that encourage the correction of false statements to uphold truthfulness in judicial proceedings.