State v. Mitchell

I respectfully dissent because I believe the trial court erred in construing the language of section 837.06, Florida Statutes, and then using that construction as a basis to grant Ms. Mitchell’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

In its order, the trial court found that the terms “statement,” “false,” and “knowledge” as used in the statute were ambiguous, requiring strict construction. Particularly, the court found that, under the statute, a statement of opinion could not serve as a basis for prosecution since the State could never show that such a “statement” was untrue. Extending this finding…