TERRY L. GRAY, 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.
Terry L. Gray was adjudicated in contempt of court for failing to recall making a statement during testimony as a witness in another defendant's trial. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a witness cannot be held in contempt merely for a genuine memory lapse.
A witness cannot be held in contempt of court based solely on a memory lapse or inability to recall events. To punish a witness for contempt based on testimony, the trial court must establish that the witness is lying under oath, not merely that he fails to remember.
[1] A witness cannot be held in contempt of court for a memory lapse regarding past events.
[2] A trial court cannot coerce a witness to swear to a recollection they do not possess.
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“I can t hold it against your client that he doesn't remember. I can hold it against him if I think he is lying.”
The trial court's statement distinguishing between memory lapse and dishonesty, which the appellate court used to support reversal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGray was subpoenaed to testify in the trial of Wisben Samedi, who was charged with cocaine possession. Gray, who had been arrested with Samedi approxi…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Terry L. Gray appeals from an amended judgment adjudicating him guilty of contempt of court and a sentence of five (5) months and twenty-nine (29) days in jail to run consecutively to a sentence he is presently serving. We reverse.
The state subpoenaed appellant to testify in the trial of Wisben Samedi. Samedi had been arrested, along with appellant and another, approximately ten months prior to trial. The state charged Samedi with possession of cocaine, but did not charge appellant. During the state’s case-in-chief, appellant testified that he did not recall making a certain unsworn statement allegedly inculpating Samedi. The state offered a portion of the arrest report, containing the general substance of the alleged statement, in an attempt to refresh appellant’s recollection. Appellant testified that he still did not recall making the statement; because of this the trial court declared appellant an adverse witness. The trial court stated: I can t hold it against your client that he doesn’t remember. I can hold it against him if I think he is lying. I suspect she [the prosecutor] can charge him with perjury if he is lying.
The trial court then found appellant in contempt of court based upon his memory lapse.
We find the the case of State ex rel. Luban v. Coleman, 138 Fla. 555, 189 So. 713 (1939), instructive. In Coleman, the witness recalled he had had a conversation with one of three men, but testified that he could not recall which man. The supreme court opined:
It would indeed be unthinkable to hold that a trial judge may send any man to prison for contempt of court because he says he cannot remember which of three men made statements to him on some occasion more than a year in the past merely because the judge thinks he should remember. A witness should not be coerced to swear that he remembers a thing if he does not remember it.
Id. 189 So. at 714.
Accordingly, we reverse the order adjudicating appellant in contempt of court and remand this cause with instructions to vacate the Amended Judgment of Guilt and Sentence.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DELL, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.