People v. De Carlo
Before: Harrison
Synopsis
Criminal Law—Perjury—Sufficiency of Information—Jurisdiction— General Statement.—Under section 966 of the Penal Cede, an information for perjury need only contain a general statement of the jurisdiction of the court over the action in which the perjury was committed, and need not set forth the facts by virtue of which the jurisdiction exists.
Id.—Jurisdiction of Justice of the Peace—Authority to Administer Oaths — Venue. — An information showing that the testimony . was given under oath before a justice of the peace having authority to administer oaths, in a specified township in the comity of the venue, in a criminal case then pending before him upon a complaint charging' the defendant with petit larceny, sufficiently shows the jurisdiction of the justice, and need not specifically aver that the larceny was committed within the county.
Id.—Question of Fact.—Whether the justice had authority to administer the oath in the criminal case then pending before him, upon a charge of larceny committed Within the county, is matter of fact to be established by the people at the trial.
Id.—Case Qualified—Obiter Dictum.—People v. Howland (incorrectly reported as Peo})le v. Howard), 111 Gal. (155, qualified, and declared to be obiter dictum, in so far as intimating that an information for perjury must set forth facts conferring jurisdiction.
Id.—Averment of Materiality—Proof.—The averment in the information that the false testimony given by the defendant in the criminal cause pending before the justice of the peace was “material to the issues tendered in said cause,” is sufficient, without specifying any particular issue upon which it was material, or showing how the false testimony was material. It . need only be proved at the trial that the evidence given by the defendant was in fact material in determining the issue before the justice’s court.
Id.—Evidence—Certificate of Election of Justice—Presumption— Validity of Election not Questionable.—The election and qualification of the justice of -the peace, and his authority to hear the complaint before him, is sufficiently shown by proof of his certificate of election, which carries with it the presumption that he had complied with the law, and was entitled to hold the office and discharge its duties. The validity of his election, or his right to hold the office, cannot be called in question upon the trial of a charge of perjury alleged to have been committed before him.
HARRISON, J. The appellant was convicted of perjury, and after the verdict moved for a new trial, which was denied, and then moved in arrest of judgment upon the ground that the facts stated in the information do not constitute a public offense. This motion having been denied, judgment was pronounced against him, from which he has appealed.
The information against the defendant is as follows: “Walter De Carlo is accused by the district attorney of Yolo county, by this information, of the crime of perjury, committed as follows, to wit: That the said Walter De Carlo, on or about the fifteenth day of July, 1897, at Woodland, in the county of Yolo, state of California, then and there being, did, having taken an oath then and there by and before the Honorable A. C. Ruggles, a justice of the peace in and for Woodland township, Yolo county, state of California, duly elected, qualified, and acting, and being entitled under the laws of the state of California to administer oaths in such matters and proceedings, that he would then and there testify truly before said justice of the peace, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, and contrary to such oath, state as true (setting forth the testimony given by him); but the said statement so made as aforesaid by said defendant was then and there false and untrue, and was at the time of the making thereof by said defendant known by said defendant to be so false and untrue.
“And said oath was so taken, and said false statement was taken and made in open court and during the pendency and as a part of the evidence in a criminal case then and there pending before said Judge Ruggles, entitled, ‘The People of the State of California versus Waller De Carlo/ upon a criminal com[464]plaint charging the said Walter De Carlo with petit larceny, and said false statement and oath was then and there material to the issues tendered in said cause; contrary to the form,” et cetera.
It is claimed by the appellant that this information is defective in that, as it is not averred in rvhat county the larceny was committed for which the defendant was tried, it does not appear from the information that the justice’s court had jurisdiction to try him for the offense; and, further, that it does not show that the alleged false testimony was material to the issues before the court.
Section 966 of the Penal Code is as follows: “In an indictment or information for perjury or subornation of perjury it is sufficient to set forth the substance of the controversy or matter in respect to which the offense was committed, and before whom the oath alleged to be false was taken, and that the court or the person before whom it was taken had authority to administer it, with proper allegations of the falsity of the matter on which the perjury is assigned; but the indictment or information need not set forth the pleadings, record, or proceedings with which the oath is connected, nor the commission or authority of the court or person before whom the perjury was committed.”
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)