Opinion ID: 1707984
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: French's conviction stems from a lengthy divorce action between himself and his former wife. French was served with a temporary restraining order which provided in part: BY ORDER OF THE COURT, YOU AND YOUR SPOUSE ARE: A. Restrained from transferring, encumbering, concealing or in any way dissipating or disposing of any marital assets, without the written consent of the other party or an order of the Court, except as may be necessary in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life. You are further to notify the other party of any proposed extraordinary expenditures made after the Temporary Restraining Order is in effect[.] Thereafter, a contempt hearing was held to establish why French should not be held in contempt for violating the court's order. In a supporting affidavit, French's wife claimed French had purchased two 1990 pickup trucks in violation of the order. During the hearing, French gave the following sworn testimony: [By Mrs. French's counsel]: Q: Would you state your full name and address? A: Norman French, Cavour, South Dakota.       Q: And did you purchase two 1991 pickup trucks? A: I purchased one 1991 pickup. Q: There is not a second one that you have purchased? A: It isn't mine. There were two of them purchased but only one of them was mine.       Q: And whose pickup is it? [referencing the second pickup]. A: It belongs to Patricia [Briere] [i.e., French's girl friend].       Q: Did Mrs. [Briere] trade in anything on the pickup truck that she has possession of? A: Yes. Q: And what did she trade in?       A: An old pickup.       Q: Did you pay anything down? A: No, I never. Thereafter, the state charged French with one count of perjury based upon the above testimony. He was charged under the provisions of SDCL 22-29-1 and 22-29-5(2). [] French filed a motion seeking a trial court determination regarding the materiality of his testimony during the contempt hearing. The motion also sought entry of an order striking the testimony from the indictment on the grounds of immateriality. The motion was denied. At a jury trial, evidence and testimony was presented by the state establishing that in September 1990, French agreed to trade his 1986 Ford pickup in on a 1991 Ford pickup. French received a trade-in allowance of $10,165 against the $24,665 purchase price of the new pickup. The evidence further established that on September 10, 1990, French agreed to trade his 1979 Freightliner semi-tractor in on a 1991 Chevrolet pickup. French received a trade-in allowance of $7,992 against the $22,192 purchase price of the new Chevrolet pickup. Both of the vehicles French traded in were marital property registered in the names of both French and his wife. Neither trade-in was authorized by French's wife or by order of the divorce court. The new pickups were both titled in French's name alone. French's girl friend contributed nothing toward the purchase of the new pickups. French alone financed the balance between the trade-in value of his old vehicles and the purchase price of the new vehicles with liens held by General Motors Acceptance Corporation. At the conclusion of state's case, French moved for a judgment of acquittal. French argued that state failed to prove the elements of the offense by failing to establish that he intentionally committed perjury and by failing to show the materiality of the testimony that was allegedly perjured. The motion for a judgment of acquittal was denied. During the settlement of jury instructions, French objected to a proposed instruction that the materiality of his testimony was a question of law for the court and that the testimony was material. The objection was overruled and the instruction was given. French also proposed a set of jury instructions that would have submitted the materiality issue to the jury. The proposals were rejected. French next proposed the submission of a set of special interrogatories to the jury concerning the materiality of his testimony. The proposed interrogatories were also rejected. The jury ultimately returned its verdict finding French guilty of perjury as charged and he was sentenced to serve five years in the state penitentiary. This appeal followed.