People v. Olivera
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Court of Sessions of Los Angeles County. The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted, of the crime of perjury. The indictment sets forth the Court, the date, and the action, in and upon which the alleged perjury was committed, as well as the question put to defendant and his alleged perjured answer. It also avers that the question and answer were material andimportantto the ease.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Sessions of Los Angeles County. The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted, of the crime of perjury. The indictment sets forth the Court, the date, and the action, in and upon which the alleged perjury was committed, as well as the question put to defendant and his alleged perjured answer. It also avers that the question and answer were material andimportantto the ease. It avers that he “ falsely, corruptly, knowingly, willingly, and maliciously,” made the perjured statement in the indictment set forth, but it does not employ the word “ feloniously.” The caso…
1Opinion of the Court
Murray, C.
The was convicted of the crime of perjury. Motion for new trial, and motion in arrest of judgment) overruled.
The errors assigned in overruling the motion for new trial, cannot be reviewed, as they are predicated upon the evidence adduced upon the trial, and there is no statement before us containing such evidence. The motion in arrest of judgment is based upon a supposed insufficiency of the indictment in this, that it does not show that either the words or the matter sworn to by the appellant, were material or important in the case. An inspection of the indictment is sufficient to…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Brown v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Kaelin v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1886
- People v. ShaberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- People v. DavenportCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
- People v. GarciaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.