Cal. Codes » Penal Code / PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS / TITLE 7. OF CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE / CHAPTER 5. Perjury and Subornation of Perjury
California Codes

Cal. Penal Code § 123 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is no defense to a prosecution for perjury that the accused did not know the materiality of the false statement made by him; or that it did not, in fact, affect the proceeding in or for which it was made. It is sufficient that it was material, and might have been used to affect such proceeding.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1970–2020 · leading case: Edmund Y. Chein v. Richard Shumsky, Chief Prob. Officer, La Cnty. California State Attorney Gen., 373 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Edmund Y. Chein v. Richard Shumsky, Chief Prob. Officer, La Cnty. California State Attorney Gen., 373 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2004). · cites it 7× “This fundamental rule of perjury law is codified in California Penal Code § 123: Witnesses’ knowledge op mateRiality of HIS TESTIMONY NOT NECESSARY.”
Milton Rosales Rivera v. Loretta E. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “” Cal.Penal Code § 123. People v. Darcy illustrates the breadth of the materiality element.”
People v. Kobrin, 903 P.2d 1027 (Cal. 1995). · cites it 2× “" (Pen. Code, § 123; see People v. Pierce, supra, 66 Cal.”
Ho Yim v. William Barr, 972 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2020). “” Although these terms are identical, Borba nevertheless contends that section 118(a) criminalizes more conduct than the BIA’s generic definition because in California “[i]t is no defense to a prosecution for perjury that the accused did not know the materiality of the false…”
People v. Rubio, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7589 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). ““It does not appear that this dicta in Kobrin , derived from California Penal Code § 123, purported to overrule earlier formulations of the materiality standard.”
People v. Gillard, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6714 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). “(Pen. Code, § 123.) Gillard also contends it was improper to convict him of perjury merely because he was not specific about the injuries he suffered in the 1987 car accident.”
People v. Laws, 120 Cal. App. 3d 1022 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). “24), and lack of knowledge of materiality is no defense (Pen. Code, § 123) were also given. Appellant argues that the mere inclusion of the word “presumed” in an instruction reverses the presumption of innocence and acts to lessen the People’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable…”
People v. Gamble, 8 Cal. App. 3d 142 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970). “An essential element of the offense of perjury is the false statement, here under oath, of some material matter.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.