Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law
perjury is considered a crime of moral turpitude
Can Police Lye on Affidavits – Short Answer, NO! THAT IS A VIOLATION OF PC 118.1
Not if they Value their Career & Freedom and Don’t want civil responsibility
Police have no expectation of privacy on phone calls. Police lines are recorded expectations end there!
The law defines perjury as the act of:
“Any person who, in any affidavit taken before any person authorized to administer oaths, swears, affirms, declares, deposes, or certifies that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case then pending or thereafter to be instituted, in any particular manner, or to any particular fact, and in such affidavit willfully and contrary to such oath states as true any material matter which he knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.”
California Penal Code 118 PC
Examples Of Perjury
The following are some examples of this crime:
- Lying when questioned about committing a crime of which he had full knowledge. For example, witnessing a homicide and responding on the stand or in an interrogation with the prosecutor who was not present at the scene.
- Being summoned by a court to give a statement about a robbery and misrepresenting the facts. Either accusing an innocent or omitting actions relevant to the case.
- Sign an affidavit in which false information is offered on a particular matter. For example, on the tax return.
- Authenticate as a notary a document under oath, knowing that it is false.
What Elements Constitute The Crime And Penalty Of Perjury In California?
To prove perjury the prosecutor must prove that the defendant:
- Swore to testify and tell the truth under penalty of perjury,
- Deliberately declared their testimony to be true despite knowing it to be false.
- Refused to provide details of a fact, deliberately omitted them, or presented inconsistent testimony.
- The information provided was of a “material” nature.
- Knew they were testifying under oath, and
- Intended to make a false statement when they appeared in court.
It is important to specify that for the penalty of perjury in California to be constituted, the message must also be communicated.
For example, you fill out a job or other application form under oath with false information and then change your mind and do not submit it. In that case, you will not have committed perjury. Even if someone else filed it for you.
What Is A Material Fact?
It is necessary that the statement lead to a material fact. That is, it is of importance or generates consequences.
The law qualifies a fact as material when:
- It is used to influence the outcome of the procedure performed, or
- It was likely to influence that result.
However, in a trial it is not a prerequisite that the testimony necessarily influence the judicial process. Just as it is not established that the person had to know that his statement was material.
Under What Circumstances Could You Be Charged With Perjury?
A person can be prosecuted for perjury if they give false information by:
- Testifying in court.
- Being questioned by a competent authority.
- A signed affidavit.
- Any other official signed statement,
- Applying for a driver’s license through the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) DL 44 form .
- Signing a certificate.
What Is The Penalty For The Crime Of Perjury In California?
Perjury in the state is penalized as a felony with:
- Imprisonment for one year in the county jail.
- Imprisonment of two to four years in the state jail and/or
- Maximum fine of $10,000.
At the judge’s discretion, the court may order an alternative measure of parole. Thus, the convicted person would not have to remain in prison while serving the sentence. source
The judge has discretion to issue the penalty how he sees fit based on the following factors:
- Seriousness of your perjury,
- Whether your perjury harmed another person.
The judge can issue any of the following penalties:
- Felony probation
- Imprisonment in county jail up to 1 year
- Imprisonment in state prison for two, three or four years.
Under California Penal Code Section 127 in addition to committing perjury a person can also be convicted for a “suborning perjury”. Suborning perjury means that the defendant intentionally persuaded, invited or coerced another person to commit perjury either in writing or verbally.
California Penal Code 118 PC defines the crime of perjury as when a person deliberately gives false testimony while under oath. A conviction is a felony punishable by probation, fines, and up to 4 years in jail or prison.
The language of the statute reads that:
118. (a) Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.
This subdivision is applicable whether the statement, or the testimony, declaration, deposition, or certification is made or subscribed within or without the State of California.
(b) No person shall be convicted of perjury where proof of falsity rests solely upon contradiction by testimony of a single person other than the defendant. Proof of falsity may be established by direct or indirect evidence.
Examples of perjury
- lying about the identification of a suspect when testifying in a California criminal trial.
- providing false information about a car accident in a deposition for a personal injury case.
- giving false information on a material matter in a signed affidavit.
A defendant can challenge a penalty of perjury charge with a legal defense. Common defenses include showing that:
- any falsehood was not intentional in nature
- the subject matter was not “material”, and/or
- the person was not actually under oath.
A violation of this statute is a felony.
- This table breaks down the 15 states with security camera laws and notes where video surveillance is allowed and under what circumstances.
- An oath is an affirmation or any other method authorized by law to affirm the truth of a statement. [↩]
- Elements. Penal Code 118; CALCRIM No. 2640. [↩]
- Could be in a form of testimony, declaration, deposition, or certification. [↩]
- Someone commits an act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on purpose. CALCRIM No. 2640. [↩]
- Information is material if it is probable that the information would influence the outcome of the proceedings, but it does not need to actually have an influence on the proceedings. Knowledge of Materiality is not necessary. Penal Code Section 123. [↩]
- Specific Intent to Testify Falsely Required. People v. Viniegra (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 [181 Cal.Rptr. 848]; see also People v. Hagen (1998) 19 Cal.4th 652, 663–664 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 24, 967 P.2d 563] [discussing intent requirement for perjury]. [↩]
- Penal Code Section 124; People v. Griffıni (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 581, 596 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 590] [delivery requirement applies to “declaration”; discussing at length meaning of “deposition,” “declaration,” “certificate,” and “affidavit”]; Collins v. Superior Court (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1244, 1247 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 123]; People v. Post (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 467, 480–481 [114 Cal.Rptr.2d 356]. [↩]
- Good Faith Belief Statement True Negates Intent. People v. Von Tiedeman (1898) 120 Cal. 128, 134 [52 P. 155] [cited with approval in People v. Hagen (1998) 19 Cal.4th 652, 663–664 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 24, 967 P.2d 563]]; People v. Louie (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d Supp. 28, 43 [205 Cal.Rptr. 247]. [↩]
- People v. Baranov (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 52, 60–61 [19 Cal.Rptr. 866]. [↩]
- There must be some other evidence that the defendant’s statement was false that corroborates the testimony of the witness. People v. Di Giacomo (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 688, 698 [14 Cal.Rptr. 574]; Penal Code Section 118(b). This other evidence may be direct or indirect. [↩]
allow anyone to recording any criminal civilians harming them
The Truth Wins, Finally!
California Supreme Court Concludes Over Secret Recording: Not Barred!
People v. Guzman – Secret Recordings – Right To Truth Prop 1982
Right to Truth – Victims’ Bill of Rights – Prop 8 1982
Page 2135 Calcrim defines confidential communication as such:
[A confidential communication does not include a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.]
|State||Public places allowed||Private places allowed||Hidden cameras allowed||Consent required|
|Alabama||Yes||Yes||No||In private places|
|Michigan||Yes||With consent||With consent||Yes|
|New Hampshire||Yes||No||With consent||Yes|
|South Dakota||Yes||No||With consent||Yes|
|Tennessee||Yes||With consent||With consent||Yes|
|Utah||Yes||With consent||With consent||Yes|
To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links
Learn More About True Threats Here below….
We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – 1st Amendment
CURRENT TEST = We also have the The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence – 1st Amendment
We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test– 1st Amendment
We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment
We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment
We also have theClear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment
We also have theGravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment
We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment
Learn More About What is Obscene….
We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment
We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment
Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….
We also have theBrayshaw v. City of Tallahassee – 1st Amendment – Posting Police Address
We also have thePublius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment – Posting Police Address
We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
We also have the Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment
We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – 1st Amendment
We also have the Introducing TEXT & EMAILDigital Evidencein California Courts – 1st Amendment
We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive – 1st Amendment
ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU? CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!
We also have the Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law
We also have theFederal Perjury – Definition by Law
We also have the Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence
We also have the Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence
We also have thePenal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officers Filing False Reports
We also have the Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment
We also have the Penal Code 148.5 PC – Making a False Police Report in California
We also have the Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California
Know Your Rights Click Here (must read!)
Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$
42 U.S. Code § 1983– Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$
$ection 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law
18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$
$uing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$
Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit
New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police
RELATIONSHIPWITH YOURCHILDREN& YOURCONSTITUIONAL RIGHT$ + RULING$
YOU CANNOT GET BACK TIME BUT YOU CAN HIT THOSE PUNKS WHERE THEY WILL FEEL YOU = THEIR BANK
We also have the 9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) — 14th Amendment thisCODE PROTECTS all US CITIZENS
We also have the Amdt220.127.116.11.2 – Parental and Children’s Rights 5th Amendment thisCODE PROTECTS all US CITIZENS
We also have the 9.32 – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship – 14th Amendment thisCODE PROTECTS all US CITIZENS
We also have the California Civil Code Section 52.1Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights
We also have the Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of RightsSCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS
We also have a SEARCH of our site for all articles relatingfor PARENTS RIGHTS Help!
Contesting / Appeal an Order / Judgment / Charge
Options to Appealing– Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Motion to Reconsider
Penal Code 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise
Penal Code 1538.5 – Motion To Suppress Evidence in a California Criminal Case
CACI No. 1501 – Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings
Penal Code “995 Motions” in California – Motion to Dismiss
WIC § 700.1 – If Court Grants Motion to Suppress as Evidence
Epic Criminal / Civil Rights SCOTUS Help – Click Here
Epic Parents SCOTUS Ruling – Parental Rights Help – Click Here