Legal Opinion

People v. Pahrman

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 13, 1931No. Docket No. 2076PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BISHOP, J., pro tem.

We are asked to free appellant from the effects of a conviction of perjury, because, technically expressed, the assignment of perjury was in solido and the proof failed to establish the falsity of the totality. Stated more plainly, the claim is, that because his testimony was averred to be contrary to the truth in two instances, set out conjunctively, and it developed that only in one instance had he departed from the truth, he has not been shown guilty of the offense charged. This plea does not commend itself to our minds. Appellant, in his opening brief, correctly senses…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. People v. BradburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. State v. HerreraNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Fudge v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1909
  4. Brown v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1898
  5. People v. SenegramCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. MizerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  2. Pueblo v. Ortiz ColónSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1962
  3. People v. Ortiz ColónSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1962

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API