People v. Forbush

8 Citing cases

  1. Dunning v. Napoleon

    Case Number: 2:11-CV-10543 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 5, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Trial Court: All right. You may step down, sir.Defendant argues under People v. Forbush, 170 Mich.App. 294, 299, 427 N.W.2d 622 (1988), that although a defendant cannot commit perjury, a defendant can testify concerning "ultimate facts" that concern legal definitions and the "legal elements of the crime." Specifically, defendant contends that his testimony would have supported an attack on the legal

  2. People v. Dunn

    No. 320227 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    "The elements of perjury are (1) the administration to the defendant of an oath authorized by law, by competent authority; (2) an issue or cause to which facts sworn to are material; and (3) wilful false statements or testimony by the defendant regarding such facts." People v Forbush, 170 Mich App 294, 301; 427 NW2d 622 (1988). In addition, Dunn was charged with procuring perjury in a court proceeding, contrary to MCL 750.425, which provides:

  3. People v. Kozyra

    219 Mich. App. 422 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 31 times
    In Kozyra, supra at 432, the Court of Appeals stated, "One of the essential elements of perjury is that the issue or cause to which the defendant swears is material.

    The elements of perjury are: (1) the administration to the defendant of an oath authorized by law, by competent authority; (2) an issue or cause to which the facts sworn are material; and (3) wilfully false statements or testimony regarding those facts. MCL 750.423; MSA 28.665; People v Forbush, 170 Mich. App. 294, 301; 427 N.W.2d 622 (1988). Because defendant swore an oath during the probate proceeding, the first element is satisfied. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of proofs regarding the second element. He denies the materiality of the facts to which he swore.

  4. People v. Honeyman

    215 Mich. App. 687 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 21 times

    People v Reddick, 187 Mich. App. 547, 551; 468 N.W.2d 278 (1991). In People v Forbush, 170 Mich. App. 294, 301; 427 N.W.2d 622 (1988), this Court set forth the elements of perjury: (1) the administration to the defendant of an oath authorized by law, by competent authority; (2) an issue or cause to which facts sworn to are material; and (3) wilful false statements or testimony by the defendant regarding such facts.

  5. People v. Moore

    180 Mich. App. 301 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 9 times

    This Court reviews the decision of the examining court for an abuse of discretion. People v Forbush, 170 Mich. App. 294, 300-301; 427 N.W.2d 622 (1988); People v Siler, 171 Mich. App. 246, 250; 429 N.W.2d 865 (1988). A preliminary examination is not a trial and the binding over of a defendant is not a conviction. If preliminary examination evidence conflicts or raises a reasonable doubt regarding a defendant's guilt, this question is properly left for judge or jury at trial, and the binding over of the defendant is still required.

  6. Segar v. Mukasey

    508 F.3d 16 (D.C. Cir. 2007)   Cited 38 times
    Approving resort to extrinsic evidence of parties' intent if an agreed order is ambiguous

    In 1988, Congress authorized the Attorney General to establish by regulation a "personnel system for senior personnel" within the FBI and DEA to be known as the "FBI-DEA Senior Executive Service." Act To Amend Title 5, United States Code, To Authorize the Establishment of the FBI and DEA Senior Executive Service, Pub.L. No. 100-325, § 1, 102 Stat. 579 (1988) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 3151(a)). The Attorney General issued a rule "formally establishing an FBI-DEA SES "in 1992. 57 Fed. Reg. 31, 314 (July 15, 1992) (codified at 28 C.F.R. § 0.157).

  7. Kropp v. Grand Island Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 2

    246 Neb. 138 (Neb. 1994)   Cited 30 times
    Meaning of ambiguous terms in contract is a question of fact to be determined by a fact-finder

    Adjudicative facts pertain to questions of who did what, where, when, how, why, and with what motive or intent. Wood CountyBank v. Camp, 348 F. Supp. 1321 (D.D.C. 1972); People v Forbush, 170 Mich. App. 294, 427 N.W.2d 622 (1988). They are roughly the kind of facts which would go to a jury in a jury case.

  8. Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Comrs. v. Sarpy Cty. Land Reutil

    9 Neb. App. 552 (Neb. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 9 times

    Adjudicative facts pertain to questions of who did what, where, when, how, why, and with what motive or intent. Kropp, supra, citing Wood County Bank v. Camp, 348 F. Supp. 1321 (D.D.C. 1972), and People v Forbush, 170 Mich. App. 294, 427 N.W.2d 622 (1988). "They are roughly the kind of facts which would go to a jury in a jury case."