In Re De Martini
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Plummer, J.
On the seventeenth day of March, 1920, an indictment was returned in the superior court of the state of California, in and for the county of Sacramento, charging the petitioner with the crime of perjury, alleged to have been committed by said petitioner in said court on or about the twelfth day of January, 1920, upon his examination on voir dire as to his competency to serve as a juror in a certain cause then and there pending. Upon such examination the petitioner was asked the following questions and gave the following answers, to wit: “Q. And if you are chosen as a juror in this case, you will try this case solely upon the evidence produced in court, and the instructions of the court? A. Yes, sir. Q. Nothing outside of the case, that is, outside of the evidence and the instructions of the court, will enter into your deliberations when you go into the jury-room? A. No, sir.”
The indictment then sets forth allegations such as are required in charging the crime of perjury; the falsity of the answers, and the knowledge thereof of the petitioner, etc.
[1] The petitioner contends that the indictment charges no public offense, and that perjury cannot be predicated upon false…