People v. Burcham

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Di Giacomo

    193 Cal.App.2d 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961)   Cited 32 times
    In People v. Di Giacomo (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 688, 699 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 574], the reviewing court held that the court's giving both an instruction that the falsity of the defendant's statement must be proved by direct, rather than circumstantial evidence, and then instructing in wording similar to CALJIC No. 2.00 was contradictory and confusing.

    [9] Evidence which merely establishes facts from which the falsity of an alleged perjured statement may or may not be inferred does not meet the requirement of the direct evidence rule applicable to perjury cases. ( People v. Maxwell, supra, 118 Cal. 50, 54; People v. O'Donnell, supra, 132 Cal.App.2d 840, 846-849; People v. Burcham, supra, 69 Cal.App. 614, 616-619; People v. Burcham, 62 Cal.App. 649, 656 [ 217 P. 558].) [8b] In the case at bar the testimony just related was supplemented by that of three handwriting experts who testified that, in their opinion, the defendant wrote the questioned endorsement "Rita Burney"; based their opinions upon a comparison of this endorsement with the handwriting exemplars of the defendant which were admitted in evidence; and detailed their reasons therefor, pointing out areas of similarity between the endorsement signature and the handwriting exemplars.

  2. People v. Tolmachoff

    58 Cal.App.2d 815 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943)   Cited 21 times
    Explaining that a false statement under section 118 must be made “with the consciousness that it was false” and “with the intent that it should be received as a statement of what was true in fact”

    His testimony was therefore of a different character but to the same point as that of Mrs. Whitehouse, viz., that Homotoff was not at a Los Angeles theatre with defendant herein, as testified to by her, and that her testimony in that regard was therefore false. The cases of People v. Burcham, 62 Cal.App. 649 [ 217 P. 558], and People v. Layman, 117 Cal.App. 476 [ 4 P.2d 244], cited and relied upon by appellant are not therefore applicable to the facts here present. Even though it be conceded that the composite testimony of Taube and Mrs. Whitehouse must be regarded as the equivalent only of the testimony of one witness, there remains the corroborative testimony of Mary Lacey that the company by which she was employed printed the programs for the Mayan Theatre in Los Angeles and that the program that defendant testified she received at the theatre in Los Angeles on the evening of July 23, 1941, was not printed until after August 27, 1941.

  3. People v. Layman

    117 Cal.App. 476 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)   Cited 11 times
    In People v. Layman, 117 Cal.App. 476 [ 4 P.2d 244], the court said (p. 478): "Appellant complains that it was error, in violation of the hearsay rule, to permit the train dispatchers to testify that they had received no report of an accident.

    None of the street-cars in charge of the motormen had been in an accident, according to their testimony. This composite testimony of the motormen is, of course, the equivalent of that of but one witness to the fact that no accident had taken place ( People v. Burcham, (1923) 62 Cal.App. 649 [ 217 P. 558]), and the law requires another witness or proof of corroborating circumstances. (Sec. 1103a, Pen. Code; sec. 1968, Code Civ. Proc.) [2] This proof we do not find, as respondent suggests we may, in the failure of appellant to produce testimony.

  4. People v. Burcham

    69 Cal.App. 614 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)   Cited 8 times

    The judgment in that case was reversed. ( People v. Burcham, 62 Cal.App. 649 [ 217 P. 558].) The opinion therein contains a comprehensive statement of the facts which show the materiality of the alleged false testimony charged in that action and in this, and no general restatement of such facts is necessary here.