Opinion ID: 200820
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Perjury.

Text: North asserts that the prosecution presented perjured testimony in violation of his right to due process when it permitted Starita to testify that he first met North in 1996. Impliedly, North urges that the admission of the alleged perjury was plain error. He asserts that Starita's perjury is demonstrated by record evidence of an inconsistency between Starita's grand jury and trial testimony and by inconsistencies between Starita's trial testimony and facts recorded in a hearsay statement that was excluded from evidence. Upon our own review, -16- we apprehend no proof in the record of any perjury, merely some attenuated or arguable inconsistencies among witnesses, and no error at all in the admission of Starita's testimony about the date.