Case Name: THE PEOPLE v. J. H. CLEMENTSHAW
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1881-07
Citations: 59 Cal. 385
Docket Number: No. 10,648
Parties: THE PEOPLE v. J. H. CLEMENTSHAW.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 385–386

Head Matter:
[No. 10,648.
Department One.]
THE PEOPLE v. J. H. CLEMENTSHAW.
Perjury—Instructions—Materiality of the Matters Sworn to.— Upon an appeal from a judgment, it was objected that the Court took from the consideration of the jury the question of the materiality of the alleged false testimony. Held; The charge was not open to the objection. Id.—Id.—Certain instructions asked by the defendant were refused by the Court, but given in effect in the general charge. Held: No error.
Appeal from a judgment of conviction in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Freelon, J.
The defendant was indicted for perjury, alleged to have been committed in testimony given by him before the Coroner’s inquest held over the body of Charles de Young. The instructions asked by the defendant, and refused by the Court, were to the effect that the jury must be satisfied that the alleged false statements must have been made willfully and corruptly, and also to the effect that something further was required to convict, than simply a- preponderance of evidence. These instructions, however, were in effect fully given in the other instructions and in the charge of the Court. The following seems to be the portion of the charge objected to: “Now, gentlemen of the jury, I charge you as a matter of law, that if the testimony set out in the information showed or tended to show the manner and means, the facts and the circumstances attending the death of Charles de Young, showed or tended to show that he came to his death by criminal means, showed or tended to show whether the act by which he was killed was excusable or justifiable or not; if the testimony set out in the information here showed or tended to show these facts, or either of them, that then the testimony was material to the issue that was legally before the Coroner’s inquest.”
Edward P. Oole, for Appellant.
A. L. Hart, Attorney General, for Respondent.

Opinion:
The Court:
We have examined the charge of the Court, and do not find (as claimed by appellant) that the Court took from the jury the facts upon which depended the materiality of the testimony of defendant before the Coroner's Jury. The instructions asked by defendant were given, in effect, in the general charge.
Judgment affirmed.