The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . See § 914.04, Fla. Stat. (2015); Perez v. State, 453 So.2d 173, 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). . . .
. . . . • See § 914.04,Stat. (2012). . . .
. . . Toogood, 349 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (involving statutory transactional immunity under, section 914.04 . . .
. . . trial whether a defendant was immune from prosecution under the investigative subpoena statute—section 914.04 . . .
. . . The order departs from the essential requirements of section 914.04, Florida Statutes (2012), which subjects . . . Section 914.04 also squarely addresses and eliminates the respondent’s vaguely-referenced concerns regarding . . .
. . . While section 914.04, Florida Statutes (2010) (providing immunity for one served with a subpoena), does . . . State, 460 So.2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (affirming conviction and explaining that section 914.04 is designed . . . The Fountaine court explained as follows: We hold that the self-executing feature of section 914.04 discussed . . . state agrees to cure the constitutional violation with a grant of use immunity pursuant to section 914.04 . . .
. . . evidentiary hearing to determine if the transactional immunity or use immunity provisions of section 914.04 . . .
. . . despite being advised that they would be given use and derivative use immunity as provided in section 914.04 . . . The Florida immunity statute, section 914.04, Florida Statutes (2008), provides, in pertinent part: No . . . Section 914.04 generally prohibits the use of such testimony in any criminal investigation or proceeding . . . contradictory statement made in the most recent proceeding was made under a grant of immunity under section 914.04 . . . We conclude that the use and derivative use immunity granted by section 914.04 satisfies any self-incrimination . . .
. . . Too-good, 349 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (involving statutory transactional immunity under section 914.04 . . .
. . . The Plaintiffs seek costs and fees in the amount of $914.04. Doc. #25 at 1. . . .
. . . Section 914.04 as set forth herein. . . . in the agreement the language providing that testimony under the agreement was pursuant to section 914.04 . . . Section 914.04 grants use and derivative use immunity to a witness compelled by subpoena to testify in . . . McKay argued that Section 914.04 does not apply to testimony given in a civil proceeding and that the . . . The court seemed to hold that Section 914.04 is the sole means by which the state can grant immunity. . . .
. . . Despite the OSP’s assertion that section 914.04, Florida Statutes (2001), conferred use and derivative . . . Grant responded by asserting that section 914.04 does not give the OSP the authority to confer immunity . . . In Florida, the statute dealing with immunity from criminal prosecution is section 914.04. . . . We conclude that the trial court correctly held that the immunity provisions of section 914.04 apply . . . The purpose of section 914.04 is to aid the State in the prosecution of crimes. See Fountaine v. . . .
. . . Florida Statutes § 914.04 previously provided for transactional immunity, but in" 1982 the legislature . . .
. . . Pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1995), she was accorded use and derivative use immunity . . . Section 914.04 immunity from use and derivative use “is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against . . . This means that if Costello were to give a statement under section 914.04, another jurisdiction seeking . . . The trial court correctly determined that the section 914.04 grant of immunity subsumed Costello’s privilege . . .
. . . DBR investigator could not grant immunity from criminal prosecution under Florida Statute, Section 914.04 . . . The Florida statute dealing with immunity from criminal prosecution is Florida Statutes, Section 914.04 . . . See § 914.04, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . The courts have consistently adhered to the principle that immunity from prosecution under Section 914.04 . . . instances, such as the instant case, where claims of immunity do not come under the confines of Section 914.04 . . .
. . . and October 13, 1994, purporting to confer upon Randall use and derivative use immunity under section 914.04 . . . As pertinent, section 914.04 provides: No person who has been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena . . . evidence so produced shall be received against him upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. § 914.04 . . . The case law addressing section 914.04 consistently has construed the statute strictly, making it clear . . . the state is not foreclosed from conferring immunity on Randall pursuant to the provisions of section 914.04 . . .
. . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) provided: Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain . . . See § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . . triggers automatic immunity from prosecution for the offense concerning which he testified under section 914.04 . . .
. . . See § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1993); § 837.021, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .
. . . On August 9, 1989, Oglesby was granted immunity from prosecution under section 914.04, Florida Statutes . . . The holding in Lurie was based on section 914.04’s predecessor, section 932.29 Florida Statutes (1967 . . . grant of immunity shall be used against the witness “upon any criminal investigation or proceeding.” § 914.04 . . . Williams, 487 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA1986) (amended statute section 914.04 confers no authority on a . . .
. . . Procedure 3.850, in which appellant contended, for the first time, that upon the authority of section 914.04 . . . retroactively as it constituted a fundamental constitutional change of law by concluding that section 914.04 . . . also reject the trial court’s argument, based upon Glenn, that since the legislature amended section 914.04 . . . acknowledged in a footnote, but still did not take into account, the fact that the legislature amended section 914.04 . . .
. . . . § 914.04 (1989). . . .
. . . Under the law promulgated by the Florida legislature, Florida Statute 914.04, a prosecution for prejury . . .
. . . Section 914.04, the immunity statute controlling, provided: No person, having been duly served with a . . . In 1980, section 914.04 provided for both transactional and use immunity. . . .
. . . the ASA informed her that she was entitled to limited immunity for her testimony by virtue of Section 914.04 . . . that the subpoena and grant of immunity were properly issued and that under the provisions of Section 914.04 . . .
. . . Florida shall confer use and derivative use immunity on Angel Fernandez pursuant to Florida Statute 914.04 . . .
. . . and refused to answer questions at a deposition, contending that the immunity flowing from section 914.04 . . . The district court reasoned that section 914.04 immunizes a witness solely from criminal prosecution . . . dealt with two attorneys who had been granted immunity from criminal prosection pursuant to section 914.04 . . . The 1975 version of section 914.04 at issue in Ciravolo provided for the broad grant of transactional . . . Once immunity was granted to DeBock pursuant to section 914.04, he was fully protected from having his . . .
. . . Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to enforce section 914.04, Florida . . . Section 914.04 provides that neither testimony given pursuant to a subpoena nor evidence procured through . . . personally, and thus, once he was compelled, through his attorneys, to produce the letters, section 914.04 . . . Accordingly, the denial of the motion to enforce section 914.04 was correct. . . .
. . . Ap-pellees were granted use immunity pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983), by virtue of . . .
. . . Florida’s use immunity statute, sections 914.04 and 914.05, Florida Statutes (1985), is similar to 18 . . .
. . . Before its amendment in 1982, Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, contained a provision, stating: “[N]o . . . As amended, Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983), provides: No person who has been duly served with . . .
. . . . § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1983); State v. Fowler, 447 So.2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Fowler v. . . . language which permits prosecution for perjury when one lies while giving an immunized statement. § 914.04 . . .
. . . See § 914.04, Florida Statutes. This testimony was stenographically recorded and later transcribed. . . .
. . . several grounds urged in support of the motion was the immunity shield conferred upon him by section 914.04 . . . Thus, in the absence of legislative action altering the inescapable effect of section 914.04, the supreme . . . The lower court was bound to accord full obedience to the immunity granted Moorman by section 914.04, . . . The legislature during its 1985 session enacted an amendment to section 914.04, with an effective date . . . We cannot, however, constitutionally give a retroactive effect to section 914.04 as it has been amended . . .
. . . L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and (2) said statements were protected by the “use immunity” guaranteed by section 914.04 . . . As noted, section 914.04, Florida Statutes, provides that whenever one testifies pursuant to a section . . . Appellant contends that since he testified in response to a State subpoena, under section 914.04, Florida . . .
. . . DeBock contended that the immunization flowing from section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983), was insufficient . . . criminal proceeding, the state has clothed DeBock with use and derivative use immunity via section 914.04 . . . It is also clear that section 914.04 provides no immunity from disciplinary proceedings instituted by . . . witness in DeBock’s position must apply therefor because, when the statutory immunity provided by section 914.04 . . .
. . . Schell, 222 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . . See 18 U.S.C.A. § 6002 (Supp.1984); § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . . violation by means of a grant of use immunity to the appropriate defense witness pursuant to section 914.04 . . . point of presenting the state with the choice of either granting the witness use immunity under section 914.04 . . . of acquittal in this case or to grant Downey, the defense witness, use immunity pursuant to section 914.04 . . .
. . . Whether this language should also be a part of section 914.04 is a matter only the legislature may address . . . Doe has been extant since 1980 and section 914.04 has been revised since 1981, but the proviso is still . . . Section 914.04 provides: No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, . . .
. . . 1980), we turn our attention to the text of Florida’s use immunity statute, which is found in section 914.04 . . . The court held that section 914.04 was self-executing and automatically grants use immunity to one who . . . the ground of self-incrimination, because he would automatically receive use immunity under section 914.04 . . . We hold that the self-executing feature of section 914.04 discussed in Jenny is limited to eases where . . .
. . . compel Richards and Wilcher, persons who indisputably had been given use immunity pursuant to Section 914.04 . . .
. . . State, 447 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1984), the Supreme Court of Florida reminds us (referring to F.S. 914.04) . . .
. . . Appellant then was specifically extended the immunity afforded by section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983 . . . In this case, appellant was granted the complete immunity available to a witness under section 914.04 . . . 222 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) construed the immunity granted by the predecessor statute to section 914.04 . . . to be limited to state compelled witnesses’ testimony, section 914.04 is not limited to testimony compelled . . .
. . . Appellant argues first that the immunity defined in Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), is . . .
. . . The Fourth District correctly held that section-914.04, Florida Statutes (1979), did not confer transactional . . . Section 914.04 is not self-executing upon the issuance of a subpoena and nonprotest-ing compliance with . . . The district court reversed, finding that section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) did not confer immunity . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) provides: Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain . . . Section 914.04 was amended in 1982 to delete the provision regarding transactional immunity. . . .
. . . her testimony and cooperation in the investigation, Fowler was granted immunity pursuant to section 914.04 . . . Section 914.04 provides that when a witness is compelled to testify under a grant of immunity, “no testimony . . .
. . . grant the state’s petition for certiorari and quash the trial court’s order which held that section 914.04 . . . We adopt the rationale of our sister court and “hold that section 914.04 is constitutional and affords . . .
. . . which denied the state’s motion to compel testimony after an offer of immunity pursuant to section 914.04 . . . Respondent argued to the trial court that “use immunity,” provided by section 914.04, was not sufficient . . . Section 914.04 refers to “testimony so given or evidence so produced.” . . . In 1973, when Popper was decided, section 914.04 provided for both “transactional immunity” and “use . . . By chapter 82-393, Laws of Florida (1982), the Florida legislature amended section 914.04 to delete “ . . .
. . . Novo that he would extend immunity pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). . . . Here, unlike Compton, 914.04 contains the additional language “any investigation”. . . . Second; 914.04 must be considered in light of basic rules of statutory construction. . . . We adopt the reasoning and analysis of the trial judge and hold that section 914.04 is constitutional . . . the language extending use immunity is not new but was contained in the previous statutes. cf., F.S., 914.04 . . .
. . . answer questions in a state investigation after being granted transactional immunity pursuant to Section 914.04 . . .
. . . Appellant received both transactional and use immunity pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes ( . . . 1979), which says: • 914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on . . . Petitioners vigorously urge that F.S. § 914.04, F.S.A. provides for transactional immunity, and that . . .
. . . following questions were certified by subsequent order as being of great importance: 1) Does Section 914.04 . . . The issues upon which this decision rests do not involve either section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979 . . . So.2d 223 (Fla.1973), concerning section 932.29, Florida Statutes (1967), the predecessor of section 914.04 . . .
. . . the state attorney and testifying under oath pursuant to subpoena, was entitled, by virtue of Section 914.04 . . . information on the basis of the immunity statute, stated, at page 803: The immunity statute, Section 914.04 . . . turn over the subpoenaed documents, in which event the witness will have immunity pursuant to Section 914.04 . . . petition for writ of prohibition against the trial court, stated at page 1192: The purpose of Section 914.04 . . . : In order for a witness’ testimony to result in either transactional or use immunity under Section 914.04 . . .
. . . only, a witness who is compelled to testify by court order will by virtue of the immunity statute, § 914.04 . . . This argument may overlook that the witness is not necessarily being called pursuant to Section 914.04 . . .
. . . since the state has advised us that pending these proceedings Delisi, Jr., has been apprehended. . 914.04 . . .
. . . Appellees are not entitled to immunity under Section 914.04 since they were not compelled to do anything . . .
. . . Jury; (b) that he appeared, was duly sworn, and was given transactional immunity pursuant to Section 914.04 . . .
. . . warnings and the deputy was not empowered to require him to answer pursuant to section 27.04 or section 914.04 . . . However, we held that the immunity afforded pursuant to section 914.04 did not preclude prosecution for . . .
. . . investigation, proceeding or trial for a violation of any of the criminal statutes of this state,” see Section 914.04 . . .
. . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979). . . .
. . . . § 914.04, goes beyond the protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment, and grants full transactional . . .
. . . majority has agreed to certify the question of whether the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 914.04 . . . .1973), that the immunity attaching under Section 932.29, Florida Statutes (1967), renumbered Section 914.04 . . . great public importance we hereby certify the following question to the Supreme Court: DOES SECTION 914.04 . . . The present statute, Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: No person, having been duly served . . . Powell, 343 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), the court held that the immunity granted by Section 914.04 . . .
. . . The Florida Bar, 361 So.2d 121 (Fla.1978), because a state attorney, pursuant to section 914.04, Florida . . . valid and effective because the conditions precedent to the grant of immunity set forth in section 914.04 . . . The Florida Bar, we held that a grant of immunity under section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), does . . . Section 914.04 provides: No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, . . .
. . . At issue is the operation of Florida’s immunity statute, section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), based . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975). . . .
. . . . § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1975). . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part: No person, having been duly served with a . . . In this instance the defendant could not have been granted immunity under section 914.04, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . another person, and therefore he should have been given immunity from prosecution pursuant to Section 914.04 . . . It is clear that the petitioner would have “use” immunity under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979 . . .
. . . first asserted that he was immunized from prosecution for the murder of Sally Burton under Section 914.04 . . . In our view the supreme court held only that Section 914.04 conferred no immunity on Dr. . . . Tsavaris was not immunized from prosecution under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) by reason of . . .
. . . entered an order discharging Weir on the ground that he had been immunized from prosecution under Sec. 914.04 . . . concur with the trial judge’s determination that, on these facts, Weir was immunized by the effect of § 914.04 . . .
. . . is an original proceeding on suggestion for Writ of Prohibition which raises questions under Section 914.04 . . . to have all charges dismissed on the grounds that he had been granted immunity under Florida Statute 914.04 . . . Section 914.04 is specific: . no person, having been duly served with a subpoena . . ., shall be excused . . .
. . . The Petitioner at that time was afforded full immunity under Florida Statute, Section 914.04 by the State . . . See §§ 2-47 and 2-47.1 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. . § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1977) . . .
. . . were to be given complete immunity from criminal prosecution pursuant to the provisions of Section 914.04 . . . However, it is respondents’ position that pursuant to Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1977), they should . . . The Forida Bar, 361 So.2d 121 (Fla.1978), we believe that respondents’ reliance on Section 914.04 is . . . In Ciravolo, at 124, the Supreme Court held “. that a grant of immunity under Section 914.04 does not . . . The effect of Ciravolo is to remove disciplinary immunity from Section 914.04 as it relates to attorneys . . .
. . . of such property thereafter, the petitioner contends that he is entitled to immunity under Section 914.04 . . . obtained through execution of a subpoena on his employee was not entitled to immunity under Section 914.04 . . . Hence, pursuant to Tsavaris, neither our state or federal constitution nor Section 914.04 entitles petitioner . . .
. . . that when he complied with the subpoena duces tecum he gained immunity from prosecution under Section 914.04 . . . Section 914.04 provides: No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces te-cum, . . . The purpose of Section 914.04 is to aid criminal prosecutions by allowing the state to elect to immunize . . .
. . . See: Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1977). . . .
. . . the petition and response is whether an accused can acquire immunity from prosecution under Section 914.04 . . . We hold that the accused cannot acquire statutory immunity for such testimony under Section 914.04, Florida . . . relators filed a motion to dismiss the information on the ground that they were immunized under Section 914.04 . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), upon which the relators rely for their claim of immunity, provides . . . None of these proceedings are covered by Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), and in none can a witness . . . investigation by the state attorney at the time they were deposed and therefore received immunity under Section 914.04 . . .
. . . question: whether or not evidence given by an attorney, following a grant of immunity under Section 914.04 . . . Pursuant to the provisions of Section 914.04, both were granted immunity in exchange for their testimony . . . [Assistant State Attorney] If you’ll examine Statute 914.04, you’ll find that it includes the language . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975) provides: Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain . . . We now limit Lurie and hold that a grant of immunity under Section 914.04 does not immunize attorneys . . .
. . . By motion to abate, Pearce says that the provisions of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975) grant . . .
. . . contended that by complying with the subpoena he had been immunized from prosecution through Section 914.04 . . . the evidence for his prosecution was based, he was, therefore, immunized by the provisions of Section 914.04 . . . Deems, 334 So.2d 829 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), where we stated: “Section 914.04, Fla.Stat., is designed to assure . . . The judgment and sentence are affirmed. . “914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain . . .
. . . Appellee moved to dismiss the information claiming transactional immunity pursuant to Section 914.04, . . . granting appellee’s motion to dismiss the information based upon transactional immunity under Section 914.04 . . .
. . . The State urges that if King had testified, he would have had immunity under Section 914.04, Florida . . .
. . . Anson, in exchange for immunity from prosecution, penalty or forfeiture pursuant to Section 914.04, Florida . . .
. . . The immunity statute, Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975) is not self-executing upon the mere issuance . . . turn over the subpoenaed documents, in which event the witness will have immunity pursuant to Section 914.04 . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975) provides: “No person, having been duly served with a subpoena . . .
. . . prosecuted under the indictments here in question, the indictments must be dismissed pursuant to F.S. 914.04 . . . they testified pursuant to subpoena, but rather relate to an independent criminal transaction, F.S. 914.04 . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975). . 287 So.2d 282 (Fla. 1973). . Id., 287 So.2d at 285. . . .
. . . In order for a witness’ testimony to result in either transactional or use immunity under Section 914.04 . . . Sec. 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1975), provides that a witness may not be prosecuted for any transaction concerning . . .
. . . filed a motion to dismiss contending that he had received transactional immunity pursuant to Section 914.04 . . . Supreme Court interpreted our immunity statute as follows: “Petitioners vigorously urge that F.S. § 914.04 . . .
. . . to the robbery sub judice, prior to trial, and he was promptly subpoenaed by the State under Chapter 914.04 . . .
. . . subpoenaed by the State to testify at a deposition pursuant to the Florida Immunity Statute which provides: 914.04 . . . Florida Statute 914.04 (1975). . . .
. . . he was immune from prosecution because he had been granted immunity pursuant to the operation of § 914.04 . . . on September 9, 1975, the state filed an amended information naming appellant as a co-defendant. § 914.04 . . .
. . . briefs and oral argument, however, both the state and appellees have argued the applicability of § 914.04 . . . It is substantially the same as the specific immunity statute set forth in § 687.071(6). § 914.04 provides . . .
. . . and was brought into the courtroom for identification during the trial he was immunized under Section 914.04 . . . Woodsmall bases his contention on that part of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, which provides that . . . appearance of Woodsmall at Kinsey’s trial resulted in the production of evidence contemplated by Section 914.04 . . . Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, clearly states that the evidence must incriminate the person who is . . .
. . . prosecutorial subpoena which entitled him to immunity pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statute 914.04 . . . Secondly, Florida Statute 914.04 is not self-operating. As stated in State ex rel Foster v. . . . Florida Statute 914.04 states: “Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions . . .
. . . Nevertheless, the Court does not believe that immunity attaches under Florida Statute § 914.04 for any . . . Affirmed. . “914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on ground testimony . . .
. . . Also, under § 914.04, Florida Statutes, the state can grant immunity to compel a witness to give testimony . . .
. . . trial, the state subpoenaed and interrogated McDonald about the incident in question pursuant to § 914.04 . . .
. . . as an individual and having so complied with the subpoena, he was immunized from prosecution under § 914.04 . . . Section 914.04, Fla.Stat., is designed to assure an individual’s constitution- The subpoena duces tecum . . . corporate records called for in the subpoena was not thereby immunized from said prosecution, by § 914.04 . . .
. . . subpoena returnable instanter and advised the court that it was thereby immunizing appellant pursuant to § 914.04 . . . In addition, the state through an investigative subpoena under § 914.04, F.S.1973, immunized appellant . . . Popper, Fla.1973, 287 So.2d 282, an individual who gives coerced testimony pursuant to § 914.04, F.S.1973 . . . other hand the state’s offer of immunity was sufficient to completely immunize the witness under § 914.04 . . .
. . . S. 914.04, wherein a person who testifies concerning matters that would incriminate him while under subpoena . . .
. . . . § 914.04. . . .
. . . not simply with the taking of a statement but more importantly with the waiver of immunity statute, § 914.04 . . .
. . . and obstructing civil process, on the ground that the defendant was immune from prosecution under § 914.04 . . . the motion to dismiss was that this testimony rendered the defendant immune from prosecution under § 914.04 . . . evidence in support of the motion, we would be inclined to agree with the State’s contention that § 914.04 . . .
. . . . § 914.04, F.S.A. Appellant relies upon the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in Lurie v. . . . the appellant testified before the Grand Jury, he was immunized under the provisions of Fla.Stat. § 914.04 . . .