Court Opinion

ID: 9865266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:29:41.493471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:15.361171
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Butler,
dissenting.
I am unable to concur in the reversal of the judgment or in the reasons assigned for such reversal.
On February 28,, 1934, the Denver grand jury was investigating reports concerning bribery of state legislators. On that day J. Dale Treece, the plaintiff in error, was duly sworn by the foreman of the jury and gave testimony material to the matter then under investigation. Thereafter he was indicted for perjury in giving such testimony. At his trial on that charge, it was proved without contradiction that his testimony before the grand jury was wilfully and corruptly false. Treece offered no evidence whatever to contradict or explain the people’s evidence. Hiss sole defense was and is that the indictment was insufficient to charge perjury, in that it did not allege the subject or nature of the inquiry in which the grand jury was engaged at the time he gave his testimony. It is said) that without such allegation the court cannot determine as a matter of law whether the grand jury was investigating* a matter it had authority to investigate, or whether the testimony given by Treece was material to the matter being investigated. That ob*39jeetion was made for the first time after the trial commenced.
Section 6779 of the Compiled Laws is quoted in the majority opinion. It is substantially the same as the statute of 23 George II, chapter 11, which was intended to do away with the hypertechnical requirements of the common law which often resulted in the acquittal of guilty parties upon mere technicalities and without regard to the merits of the case. Under that statute the English courts held that, for the purpose of showing jurisdiction in an indictment for perjury, it was sufficient to set forth the substance of the offense (i. e., the perjury), the name of the court before whom the oath was taken, and aver the court’s authority to administer the oath. Thompson v. People, 26 Colo. 496, 59 Pac. 51; Fitch v. Commonwealth, 92 Va. 824, 24 S. E. 272. An express allegation that the court or the grand jury had jurisdiction of the case or of the matter under investigation is not required, it being sufficient, for the purpose of showing’ jurisdiction, to allego that the court or the foreman of the grand jury had authority to administer the oath in question. Thompson v. People, supra; Markham v. United States, 160 U. S. 319, 16 Sup. Ct. 288.
The statutes of some other states provide that it is sufficient to set forth “the substance of the controversy in regard to which the offense was committed,” etc. See State v. Witham, 6 Ore. 366; People v. Gillette, 111 N. Y. S. 133, 137; People v. Ah Bean, 77 Cal. 12, 18 Pac. 815; State v. Reidt, 54 S. D. 178, 222 N. W. 677. Under such a statute the court, in the Ah Bean case, supra, held sufficient in that respect an indictment that stated the name of the court, the cause in which the alleged evidence was given, that the cause was at issue—without stating what the issu,e was—-the evidence given, and that such evidence was material to the issue. The court said:
“There are two modes by which the materiality of the alleged false statement may be shown in criminal pleading : 1. By setting forth the nature of the issue, and the *40evidence given thereon, so that, as a matter of law, it may be said the testimony upon which the perjury is assigned is material to the issue; 2. By showing an action at issue in a court of competent jurisdiction, the testimony given, its willful and felonious falsity, coupled with the averment that it was material to the issue.
“The difference in the two methods consists in showing the materiality of the testimony in the one case and merely averring it in the other.”
And in the Reidt case, supra, the court upheld an information that charged that the defendant falsely testified that he had not been engaged in handling intoxicating liquors, after having taken an oath in an action pending in the circuit court in H. county, a named judge presiding, in an action entitled “State of South Dakota v. H. F.” and others—without stating what the issue was— and that the false testimony related to a material matter in the pending cause. The court referred to a statutory provision similar to section 6779, supra, and to another provision to the effect that it is sufficient if the, offense charged is designated in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended,, and said: “The nature of the testimony alleged to have been falsely given shows plainly that the action was for the violation of some provision of the intoxicating liquor law.”
Even if our, statute provided that it is sufficient to set forth the substance of the matter being investigated by the grand jury, the indictment would be sufficient, for the nature of the testimony alleged therein to have been given by Treece shows sufficiently the matter under investigation. But it is important to note that our statute (§6779, supra) provides that it shall be sufficient to set forth, not the substance of the matter under investigation by the grand jury, but “the substance of the offense charged upon the defendant,” etc.
In Thompson v. People, supra, the information alleged, in part, that in a certain criminal case coming on to be *41heard “on a certain issue”—not stating what the issue was—between the people and one Creamer, Thompson was sworn as a witness to testify the truth “touching the matters in question,”—not stating what they were; “that it became and wasi a material question” whether at a stated time and place one Meyers handed to anyone a pistol, saying, “Take this”; that Thompson swore that at the specified time and place witness saw Meyers hand a pistol to someone, saying “Take this”; whereas in truth Meyers did not hand a pistol to anyone. The information was held to be sufficient. We said, inter alia: “We cannot see any force in the contention of counsel that these allegations do not sufficiently charge that the plaintiff in error swore falsely fin a matter material to the issue or point in question. ’ On the contrary we think, under the rule announced in the foregoing authorities, these averments sufficiently charge that the false testimony was in respect to a matter material in the action in which it was given.”
In addition to section 6779, supra, we have section 7062, Compiled Laws, which provides: “Every indictment or accusation of the grand jury shall be deemed sufficiently technical and correct which states the offense in the terms and language of this code, or so plainly that the nature of the offense may be easily understood by the jury.”
The indictment before us sets forth the substance of the offense charged, and sets it forth so plainly that neither the defendant, nor his counsel, nor the jury could have misunderstood its nature. It is not claimed that there was any misunderstanding on the part of anyone with reference thereto.
In my opinion, the indictment is sufficient.
But assuming that the indictment was defective in the particular claimed, Treece would not be entitled to a reversal of the judgment.
Section 7068 of the Compiled Laws provides: “All exceptions which go merely to the form of an indictment *42shall be made before trial, and no motion in arrest of judgment or writ of error shall be sustained for any matter not affecting the real merits of the offense charged in such indictment.”
And section 7103, Id., declares that: “* * * no indictment or information shall be deemed insufficient, nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be reversed or affected by any defect which does not tend to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant on the merits.”
Those two sections and sections 6779 and 7062, supra, were intended to prevent the escape of guilty persons upon technical grounds not affecting their substantial rights.
It is not suggested that any substantial right of Treece was prejudiced in any manner or to any extent by the fact that the indictment did not allege the matter that was under investigation by the grand jury. Treece does not claim that the absence of such allegation handicapped him in the preparation of his defense. Indeed, he does not suggest that he had any defense on the merits, and the record shows conclusively that he had none.
I respectfully submit that there is nothing in the record to justify a reversal of the judgment, and that the judgment, therefore, should be affirmed.
Mr. Justice Campbell and Mr. Justice Burke concur herein.