"[A] false material statement is one that could probably have influenced the outcome' of the proceeding in which it is uttered.", DUH............

August 21, 2004

"[A] false material statement is one that could probably have influenced the outcome' of the proceeding in which it is uttered." People v. Rubio, no. F043941 (Cal.Ct.App. (5th Dist.) Aug. 18, 2004).

Holding: "We agree with Rubio’s argument that the 2003 version of CALJIC No. 7.20 incorrectly defines materiality. This instruction correctly informs the jury that a false statement must be material before the defendant can be found guilty of perjury. The instruction then defines a false material statement as one that 'could influence the outcome of the proceedings in which it is uttered.' We think the correct definition of a false material statement is one that 'could probably have influenced the outcome' of the proceeding in which it is uttered. (People v. Pierce (1967) 66 Cal.2d 53, 61.)"

The court rejected the argument that the error was structural, and affirmed, finding it harmless under Chapman.

Panel: Vartarbedian, Cornell, Dawson.

Posted by Jonathan Soglin at 03:12 PM in Perjury/False Statements | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 19, 2004

Two More Unanimous Cal. Supreme Court Decisions Today.

People v. Griffin, no. S029174 (death sentence affirmed after second penalty phase, which followed first appeal in which Court had remanded for new penalty phase because of error in giving Briggs instruction). (Author: George; unanimous.)

Kulshreshta v. First Union, no. S115654 (declarations signed under penalty of perjury outside CA do not satisfy Cal. Code Civ. Proc. sec. 2015.5, and are not admissible in summary judgment and other authorized proceedings, when contents are not certified as true “under the laws of the State of California”). (Author: Baxter; unanimous.)

June: 11 of 13 opinions unanimous.

July: 9 of 10 opinions unanimous.


Posted by Jonathan Soglin at 08:40 PM in Death Penalty, Perjury/False Statements | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 31, 2004

Fishy Fishing Filing May Result in False Instrument Prosecution.
Case: People v. Powers, no. A103622 (Cal.Ct.App. (1st Dist., Div. 4) Mar. 30, 2004)
Proceeding: Prosecutor's appeal of orders sustaining a demurrer to the complaint and denying the a motion to reinstate the complaint.

Holding: Reversed. A fishing activity report required to be filed under the Fish and Game Code and Department regulations is an instrument within the meaning of Penal Code section 115 and a fishing boat operator who files a false fishing activity report with the Department may be prosecuted under section 115 for knowingly offering a false instrument to be filed with a state public office.

Authoring Justice: Patricia K. Sepulveda

Posted by Jonathan Soglin at 10:27 PM in Perjury/False Statements | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack