People v. Rosen

California Court of Appeal Apr 20, 1937 No. Crim. 2957Published

Before: McCOMB

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed a perjury conviction, holding that the evidence satisfied statutory corroboration requirements, the false testimony was material to the defendant's ability to pay alimony, and the trial court's supplemental instruction to the jury was not erroneous.

Issues

Whether the evidence met the requirements of Penal Code section 1103a for proving perjury.
Whether the defendant's false testimony regarding his purchase of rings was material to the contempt proceeding.
Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in its supplemental instruction to the jury after they reported an inability to reach a verdict.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Perjury must be proved by the testimony of two witnesses or of one witness and corroborating circumstances.”

“It is self-evident that, if he had in his possession $150, he had greater ability to comply with the court’s order than if he had only $10.”

“The giving of an identical instruction was approved in People v. Riddle, 16 Cal. App. (2d) 494 [60 Pac. (2d) 899].”

McCOMB, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of perjury after trial by jury.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to the prosecution

(People

Dukes,

90 Cal. App. 657, 659 [266 Pac. 558]), the facts in the instant case are:

March 17, 1936, defendant, after being duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a proceeding then pending before the superior court to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court for failure to comply with an order of said court directing him to pay his former wife certain sums as alimony, testified that he had purchased two rings on the instalment plan, paying $100 for both of them. At the conclusion of the hearing defendant was found guilty of contempt and appropriately punished.

Albert I. Kastle testified in the present proceeding that he had sold defendant the two rings above mentioned for the sum of $150 in cash and defendant had requested that he do him a favor, as he was having a little family trouble, by giving him a book to make it appear that he had purchased the rings on the instalment plan for $100, $10 down and $5 a month. Such a book in the handwriting of the witness had been prepared and delivered to defendant.

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on the following propositions:

First: There is no substantial evidence in accordance with the requirements of section 1103a of the Penal Code to sustain the judgment.

Second: Defendant’s testimony at the hearing of the order to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for failure to comply with the order of the superior court was not as to a material issue in that proceeding.

Third: After the jury returned into open court from

their.

deliberations and stated that they were unable to agree upon

[447]

People v. Rosen

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief