Rubio
People v. Rubio
Opinion
Opinion
Cornell, J.
Luis Miguel Rubio was convicted of one count of perjury (Pen. Code, § 118) and sentenced to the midterm sentence of three years. He argues on appeal that the trial court improperly instructed the jury and abused its discretion when it refused to sentence him to probation.
We agree with Rubio’s argument that the 2003 version of CALJIC No. 7.20 incorrectly defines materiality. This instruction correctly informs the jury that a false statement must be material before the defendant can be found guilty of peijury. The instruction then defines a false material statement as one that “could influence the outcome of the proceedings in which it is uttered.” We think the correct definition of a false material statement is one that “could probably have influenced the outcome” of the proceeding in which it is uttered. (People v. Pierce (1967) 66 Cal.2d 53, 61 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 423 P.2d 969 ].)
We conclude, however, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We also reject Rubio’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in denying him probation and affirm the judgment.