Case Title: Mendez v. Com.

Citation: 255 S.E.2d 533

Docket Number: 781203, 781204

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 1979-06-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
255 S.E.2d 533 (1979)
Juan Barretto MENDEZ, Jr.
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
Record Nos. 781203, 781204.

Supreme Court of Virginia.
June 8, 1979.
G. Daniel Forbes, Franklin, for appellant.
Robert H. Herring, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Marshall Coleman, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee, in Record No. 781203.
Burnett Miller, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Marshall Coleman, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee, in Record No. 781204.
Before I'ANSON, C. J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN, POFF and COMPTON, JJ.
HARMAN, Justice.
After a bench trial, Juan Barretto Mendez, Jr., (Mendez or defendant) was convicted of bribery, Code § 18.2-447, and perjury Code § 18.2-434. He was sentenced to serve a two-year term in the penitentiary on each charge. We granted writs of error on limited grounds to review defendant's claims (1) that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the bribery conviction, and (2) that an oath administered to him on an affidavit was gratuitous and insufficient to support a perjury conviction.
On December 19, 1976, Mendez, a convict imprisoned at Southampton Correctional Center, was approached by two correctional officers, L. W. Green and Robert T. Jones, Jr., who were conducting a routine "shakedown" of prisoners. The officers requested defendant, who was then in the prison yard, *534 to enter a building where he could be searched. When defendant refused to accompany the officers, Officer Jones remained with Mendez and sent Officer Green to inform a supervisor of the defendant's refusal to be searched.
Jones testified that Mendez, who attempted to focus the officer's attention elsewhere, removed a plastic bag from one of his pockets and dropped it to the ground. Jones retrieved the bag, which contained 31 marijuana cigarettes. Mendez was then charged with possession of marijuana.
The bribery charge resulted from a conversation between defendant and Officer Green on February 5, 1977, while the marijuana charge was pending against defendant.
The record shows that Green's testimony was:
The record shows Green related this conversation to Jones and the bribery charge was lodged against Mendez.
Defendant points out that no sum of money was ever mentioned in his conversation with Green, that he never discussed a change in Jones' testimony with Jones, and that he never directly offered money to Jones. From this Mendez argues that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, shows "no more than an inquiry concerning possible bribery." We find no merit in this argument.
Code § 18.2-447, in pertinent part, provides:
"(1) If he offers, confers or agrees to confer upon another (a) any pecuniary benefit as consideration for or to obtain or influence the recipient's decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or other exercise of discretion as a public servant or party official, or (b) any benefit as consideration for or to obtain or influence either the recipient's decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or other exercise of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding or the recipient's violation of a known legal duty as a public servant or party official . . .."
We had occasion in Ford v. Commonwealth, 177 Va. 889, 15 S.E.2d 50 (1941), to construe similar language which appeared in Code, 1936, § 4496, a statutory ancestor of our present statute. There we said:
177 Va. at 893, 15 S.E.2d  at 52-53.
Here the evidence shows that Mendez, through Green, implied a willingness to pay money to Jones to induce him to change his testimony in the pending marijuana case. While no specific sum was ever mentioned, this is of no consequence for when Mendez, through Green as an intermediary, indicated that he would pay Jones money if Jones would alter his testimony, the statutory crime of bribery was complete. We therefore hold that the evidence adduced was sufficient to sustain the bribery conviction.
While the marijuana and bribery charges were pending against him, Mendez and his counsel contacted the Commonwealth's Attorney. Mendez represented that he never possessed the marijuana as charged and that Officer Green had solicited a bribe of $225 for Jones, who wasn't "rich", to "change the story so [Mendez could] win the case and [Jones] could have two hundred and twenty-five dollars in his pockets." Mendez offered to submit to a polygraph examination in order to convince the Commonwealth's Attorney that the facts he related were true.
An agreement was reached that Mendez would receive such an examination if, prior thereto, he made the statements related earlier to the Commonwealth's Attorney under oath in affidavit form and entered into a stipulation that the results of that examination, whether favorable or unfavorable to Mendez, would be admissible in evidence. Mendez was warned by the Commonwealth's Attorney that his affidavit, if proven untrue by the subsequent polygraph examination, could result in Mendez being charged with perjury.
To carry out the agreement Mendez signed the required written stipulation. Defendant also prepared a written statement denying he ever possessed the marijuana and restating his version of the conversation with Green. This statement was signed and acknowledged by Mendez before Catherine H. Bass, Clerk of the General District Court of Southampton County on July 5, 1977.
Mendez submitted on two separate occasions to polygraph examinations by State Police Investigator Twine, a trained polygraph expert. Twine testified that the tests showed that Mendez was "deceptive" when he denied possession of the marijuana and was also "deceptive" when he said the bribery proposal was initiated by Green. Twine further testified that defendant, in a conversation subsequent to the tests, admitted to Twine that he had, in fact, possessed the marijuana.
Code § 18.2-434 provides, in pertinent part:
In order to sustain a perjury conviction under this statute, the Commonwealth had the burden of proving:
The authority of a clerk of court to administer an oath or take an affidavit is purely a creature of statute. In this instance that authority springs from Code § 49-4 which, in pertinent part, provides:
*536 Thus it is clear that the authority of the clerk of court to administer an oath or take an affidavit is limited to an oath or affidavit required by law which is not of such nature that it must be made in court.
Here, the affidavit was not one required by law. Instead, the affidavit was a condition imposed upon defendant by the Commonwealth's Attorney as a condition precedent to obtaining a polygraph examination requested by defendant.
Having concluded that the affidavit in question here was not one required by law but, instead, was a gratuitous one, we must also conclude that such an affidavit, however false it may be, cannot sustain a conviction for perjury under Code § 18.2-434. Commonwealth v. Simon, 11 Va.L.Reg., N.S., 349 (Corp.Ct. City of Norfolk 1925). Therefore, the judgment in the bribery conviction will be affirmed. The judgment in the perjury conviction will be reversed and the prosecution will be dismissed.
Affirmed as to Record No. 781204.
Reversed and dismissed as to Record No. 781203.