Opinion ID: 2064646
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is Falsity Alleged with Sufficient Particularity?

Text: Appellant next asserts that if falsity is alleged, it is not stated with sufficient particularity. He may find support for this claim in a few older cases. [4] But the modern  indeed the better  view is contrary to his position. [5] It is true that an indictment which tracks the statute will be defective unless it also descends to particulars, Russell, supra, 369 U.S. at 765, 82 S.Ct. at 1038, 1048, enabling a defendant to prepare to meet the charge. `Undoubtedly, the language of the statute may be used in the general description of an offense, but it must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offense, coming under the general description, with which he is charged.' [ Id., quoting United States v. Hess, 124 U.S. 483, 487, 8 S.Ct. 571, 31 L.Ed. 516 (1888).] The facts and circumstances of the alleged falsity, however, usually can be stated quite simply. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has noted: In a perjury trial, assuming that, as in this case, the indictment lists the questions asked and the answers given, there is little else needed to enable the accused to prepare a defense. He knows that the questions have been asked, and he is told that the government believes his answers were false. He must be prepared to defend his answers. [ Gebhard v. United States, supra at 285.] The present case clearly conforms to this straight-forward analysis in Gebhard. In addition to repeating the statutory language, the indictment referred to Dr. Hsu's oath before Judge Hyde on January 5, 1976, in Civil Action No. 11294-75 and, further, specified the question and offending answer he allegedly gave. We agree, following the Ninth Circuit approach, that this sufficed to inform Dr. Hsu of the alleged falsity. [6]