Fudge v. State

Citations

• 57 Fla. 7

Syllabus

<p>1. That part of the indictment for perjury which expressly alleges the falsity of the testimony given by the accused is technically called the assignment. This is the gist of the offence, not mere inducement; consequently the allegation must be direct and specific, not in terms of uncertain meaning, or by way of implication.</p> <p>2. It is necessary in an indictment for perjury to expressly and positively negative the truth of the alleged false swearing, by stating the facts by way of antithesis. A general denial that the testimony in question was false is not sufficient. In addition to an averment that the testimony of the accused was false, the indictment should also set forth the truth in regard to the matter at issue. Thus, after stating the substance of what was sworn to, the indictment proceeds: “Whereas in truth and in fact,” adding wherein such matter was false.</p> <p>3. The requirement that, in an indictment for perjury, it is necessary to make direct and specific allegations negativing the truth of the alleged false testimony by setting forth the true facts by way of antithesis is not a mere matter of form, but is the very essence of the indictment, and necessary in order to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him by setting out wherein or in what regard his testimony was claimed to be false.</p> <p>4. Instead of saying merely that the accused was “sworn as a witness, etc., the indictment for perjury should allege at least that he was “duly sworn,” or “in due form of law sworn,” or words of equivalent import, especially where the indictment does not attempt to set forth the words of the oath.</p>