Court Opinion

ID: 9617285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:54:04.793458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:07.712517
License: Public Domain

McGHEE, Justice (dissenting in part). I concur in the opinion proposed by Justice COMPTON except the part holding the defendant was properly sentenced under Sec. 40-32-1,- N.M.S.A.1953, which as I read and construe it relates only to perjury committed in a case in court. A matter being investigated by a grand jury is not a case in court as is held in Gamble v. State, 164 Md. 50, 163 A. 859, 861, which is the only case I have found which is squarely in point. It is agreed the defendant was tried under Sec. 40-32-2, reading: “If any person of whom an oath shall be required by law, shall wilfully swear falsely in -regard to any matter or thing, respecting which such oath is required, such person shall be deemed guilty of perjury.” The three following sections relate to false swearing before a legislative committee or either house of the legislature, subordination of perjury, and attempt to suborn perjury. Two carry specific penalties' which are different, while subordination of perjury carries none. I agree with the -contention of appellant that she should have been sentenced under Section 40-1-7, N.M.S.A.1953. T-he-'case of Dickey v. Smith cited in the majority opinion involved the question of the number of times a justice of the peace could grant a new trial in a civil case, and also whether a certain account could be set up as a counterclaim. I do. not regard it as authority for what is held here.