Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Howardgreen2 sentences2024(People v. Howard (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 999, 1004 .) “[W]hen imposing an aggravated sentence because of perjury at trial, the sentencing judge is constitutionally required to make on- the-record findings encompassing all the elements of a perjury violation. 2021(See People v. Howard (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 999, 1003-1005 [federal Constitution requires a court using defendant’s untruthful testimony to aggravate a sentence to make findings “encompassing all the elements of a perjury violation”].) 3 Similar to section 1203, subdivision (e)(2), this provision defines “serious felony” as “any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon.” (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23).) 2 manslaughter, and that a section 667.5, subdivision (c)(8) enhancement did not apply to involuntary manslaughter. | 2 | 4 |
McNeil v. Wisconsingreen2 sentences2000The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches when adversary proceedings are initiated (McNeil v. Wisconsin (1991) 501 U.S. 171, 175 [ 111 S.Ct. 2204, 2207 , 115 L.Ed.2d 158 ]), but when precisely does it terminate? 2000The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches when adversary proceedings are initiated (McNeil v. Wisconsin (1991) 501 U.S. 171, 175 [ 111 S.Ct. 2204, 2207 , 115 L.Ed.2d 158 ]), but when precisely does it terminate? | 1 | 1 |
People v. Viniegragreen2 sentences1998Johnny contends that, in addition to its error in instructing with CALJIC No. 1.20, the trial court erred in failing to instruct, pursuant to the standard perjury instruction (CALJIC No. 7.21), that former section 19405(a)(1) requires proof of “specific intent to declare falsely under penalty of perjury.” (Cf. People v. Viniegra (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 848 ] [Perjury under Penal Code section 118 requires “the specific intent to declare falsely under oath or penalty of perjury.” (Italics omitted.)].) Johnny cites no authority that such a requirement is part of the willful 1998Johnny contends that, in addition to its error in instructing with CALJIC No. 1.20, the trial court erred in failing to instruct, pursuant to the standard perjury instruction (CALJIC No. 7.21), that former section 19405(a)(1) requires proof of “specific intent to declare falsely under penalty of perjury.” (Cf. People v. Viniegra (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 848 ] [Perjury under Penal Code section 118 requires “the specific intent to declare falsely under oath or penalty of perjury.” (Italics omitted.)].) Johnny cites no authority that such a requirement is part of the willful | 1 | 1 |
People v. Richiegreen2 sentences1997(People v. Richie (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1360 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 200 ].) Given the absence of a definition of the term “material” and failure of the court’s instruction to reiterate the materiality requirement in the specifically enumerated list of elements of the charge, we are convinced the perjury instruction was inadequate. 1997(People v. Richie (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1360 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 200 ].) Given the absence of a definition of the term “material” and failure of the court’s instruction to reiterate the materiality requirement in the specifically enumerated list of elements of the charge, we are convinced the perjury instruction was inadequate. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Gaudin
green
1 sentence1997(Italics added.) Unlike Kobrin and United States v. Gaudin, supra, 515 U.S. 506 in which cases the trial court affirmatively removed the issue of materiality from the jury’s consideration and decided it as a matter of law, here the instruction informed the jury at the outset that a perjury conviction could only be based on a material statement. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
United States v. Dunnigan
green
2 sentences1993The defendant in Dunnigan argued that an enhancement for perjury undermines the constitutional right to testify, due to the risk of enhancement without regard to the truth. (507 U.S. at p__[ 122 L.Ed.2d at p. 454 , 113 S.Ct. at p. 1117 ].) The court responded, “The concern that courts will enhance sentences as a matter of course whenever the accused takes the stand and is found guilty is dispelled by our earlier explanation that if an accused challenges a sentence increase based on perjured testimony, the trial court must make findings to support all the elements of a perjury violation in the 1993The defendant in Dunnigan argued that an enhancement for perjury undermines the constitutional right to testify, due to the risk of enhancement without regard to the truth. (507 U.S. at p__[ 122 L.Ed.2d at p. 454 , 113 S.Ct. at p. 1117 ].) The court responded, “The concern that courts will enhance sentences as a matter of course whenever the accused takes the stand and is found guilty is dispelled by our earlier explanation that if an accused challenges a sentence increase based on perjured testimony, the trial court must make findings to support all the elements of a perjury violation in the | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.