People v. Kobrin
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ARABIAN, J.
“For if it be not material, then though it be false, yet it is no perjury, because it concemeth not the point in suit . . . ,’’1
Since early common law, materiality has been considered an “essential element” of the crime of perjury. (Perkins on Criminal Law (2d ed. 1969) p. 462; Note (1938) 11 So.Cal.L.Rev. 309, fn. 1; see People v. Pierce (1967) 66 Cal.2d 53, 61 [56 Cal.Rptr. 817, 423 P.2d 969].) Yet it has until recently remained the general rule that “[t]he question of the materiality of evidence, no matter when or how it may arise, is always one of law for the court, and…
2Cases cited49 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Estelle v. McGuireSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Mullaney v. WilburSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- People v. BolinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- People v. FloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- People v. KippCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- People v. BookerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Edmund Y. Chein v. Richard Shumsky, Chief Probation Officer, La County California State Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.