Cabe

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Petitioner, while undergoing voir dire by a judge, was asked the following question: “Anybody in your immediate family or yourself been arrested?” Petitioner answered: “One of my boys was arrested.” It was true that one of petitioner’s sons had been arrested. However, petitioner failed to reveal that he, too, had at one time been arrested. Later, the judge asked a “catchall” question which asked the potential jurors to disclose whether they knew anything which would cause them to be biased. Petitioner did not respond.

Petitioner was charged by information with perjury. (Pen. Code, § 118.) Later, petitioner filed a section 995 motion to set aside the information. Relying on Bronston v. United States (1973) 409 U.S. 352 [ 93 S.Ct. 595 , 34 L.Ed.2d 568 ] (Bronston) and In re Rosoto (1974) 10 Cal.3d 939 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 519 P.2d 1065 , 69 A.L.R.3d 980 ] (Rosoto), petitioner asserted that a charge for perjury cannot be based on a statement which is literally true, even if the statement is misleading, unresponsive or leaves a false impression. The prosecution, citing People v. Meza (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1631 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 235 ]…