Pendleton v. State

• Decision Date: 11 March 1959
• Docket Number: No. 29676,29676
• Parties: John PENDLETON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 782

156 N.E.2d 782

239 Ind. 341

John PENDLETON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 29676.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 11, 1959.

Paul E. Blackwell, Indianapolis, Rochford, Blackwell & Rochford, Indianapolis, of counsel, for appellant.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOBBITT, Judge.

Appellant was charged by indictment with the crime of perjury under Acts 1927, ch. 203, § 8, p. 580, being § 10-3802, Burns' 1956 Replacement, tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, found guilty as charged, and sentenced accordingly.

Two questions are presented for our consideration: (1) Is the evidence sufficient to sustain the decision of the trial court? and (2) Did the court err in overruling appellant's motion for discharge?

Appellant asserts that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the fact of false swearing.

Section 10-3802, supra, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

'Whoever wilfully, corruptly and falsely, before any officer authorized to administer oaths, under oath or affirmation, voluntarily makes any false certificate, affidavit or statement of any nature, for any purpose, shall be deemed guilty of perjury, * * *.'

The rule in Indiana as to the evidence necessary to establish the crime of perjury in connection with a voluntary affidavit is ably stated in Gardner v. State, 1951, 229 Ind. 368, at page 376, 97 N.E.2d 921, at page 924, as follows:

'In a prosecution for perjury in a voluntary affidavit it has long been the law in Indiana that the evidence must not only show the defendant swore falsely in fact, but also that he did so wilfully, corruptly and knowingly.' (Citing authorities.) See also 3 Wharton's Cr.Law, § 1291, p. 650.

We recognize the general rule that it is not necessary in order to sustain a judgment on appeal for the evidence to show the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but all that is required is that there be some evidence of probative value sustaining every material allegation of the affidavit or indictment. Arrington v. State, 1952, 230 Ind. 384, 386, 103 N.E.2d 210.

However, appellant here relies upon an exception to the foregoing rule, which applies on a charge of perjury. ¹ This exception is clearly stated by Judge Lairy, speaking for this court in Hann v. State, 1916, 185 Ind. 56, at pages 60, 61, 113 N.E. 304, at page 306, as follows:

'To warrant a conviction of perjury, the evidence must be such as to satisfy the jury to the exclusion of a rational doubt of the falsity of the matter sworn to by the accused, but this evidence must be no less than the direct and positive testimony of two witnesses or one witness and corroborating facts and circumstances. The direct evidence contemplated is not limited to a denial in ipsissimis verbis of the testimony given by the defendant, but includes any positive testimony of a contrary state of facts from that sworn to by him at the former trial, or which is absolutely incompatible with his evidence, or physically inconsistent with the facts so testified to. This evidence must be of such a character as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt.'

See also Woodward v. State, 1926, 198 Ind. 70, 152 N.E. 277; Galloway v. State, 1868, 29 Ind. 442; Hendricks v. State, 1866, 26 Ind. 493; Pierce and Another v. McConnell and Others, 1844, 7 Blackf. 170; People v. Thomas, 1949, 90 Cal.App.2d 491, 203 P.2d 567; Rader v. State, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 105, 108; State v. Phillips, 1952, 172 Kan. 505, 241 P.2d 503; People v. Anderson, 1947, 117 Colo. 342, 187 P.2d 934; Lindsay v. People, 1949, 119 Colo. 438, 204 P.2d 878; Whitaker v. Commonwealth, 1950, 314 Ky. 303, 234 S.W.2d 971; Edison v. Commonwealth, Ky.1953, 257 S.W.2d 588; State v. Sailor, 1954, 240 N.C. 113, 81 S.E.2d 191; Blackstone v. State, 1949, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 62, 225 S.W.2d 184; 70 C.J. Perjury § 68, p. 536.

There is no detailed rule prescribing the nature of the corroboration of the testimony of a single witness. ² However, such corroboration may be furnished by circumstantial evidence. Harrison v. State, 1952, 231 Ind. 147, 167, 106 N.E.2d 912, 32 A.L.R.2d 875; Galloway v. State, 1868, 29 Ind. 442, supra.

The rule as stated in Hann v. State, 1916, 185 Ind. 56, 113 N.E. 304, supra, applies only to the fact of false swearing and not to every detail or act surrounding the fact alleged as falsely sworn. However, the evidence as a whole must be such as to satisfy the jury of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Galloway v. State, 1868, 29 Ind. 442, 450, supra.

An examination of the evidence most favorable to the appellee discloses that appellant contracted with one Edward C. Payk and his wife, Stella Payk, to build a dwelling house for them in Hendricks County, Indiana.

On January 13, 1956, at a meeting in the offices of the Union Federal Savings & Loan Association for the purpose of completing arrangements for obtaining a construction loan on the property, appellant signed a contractor's affidavit in which he stated, under oath, that there were no unpaid bills for labor performed or material furnished, and that all such bills 'have been paid to date,' i. e., January 13, 1956, when in truth and in fact there was at that time a balance due the Timmons Lumber Company at Mooresville, Indiana, for materials delivered on January 3d, 4th, 5th and 6th, 1956.

Mr. Timmons testified, as a witness for the State, that he had sold materials to appellant herein for use in constructing the Payk dwelling, and that there was due and owing him 'before the 13th, the balance shows $2,623.81'; that he received, on January 16, 1956, a payment in the amount of $1,739.95, for lumber and materials furnished prior to January 1, 1956, leaving a balance due on January 13, 1956, of $883.86. This witness further testified that a statement (State's Exhibit 1) to which is attached copies of invoices, was delivered to appellant on January 1, 1956, covering materials delivered to January 1, 1956, and that no statement for any materials delivered between January 1 and January 13, 1956, would be sent unless requested, until the first of the month following the date of delivery, because it was the practice of his company to bill the first of the month following delivery, and that the materials for this job were sold on 'open account.'

In reply to questions on cross-examination this witness further testified as follows:

'Q. Did you, Mr. Timmons, or did you not instruct any employee in your company to advise Mr. Pendleton or the Union Federal or Mr. Payk between the rendering of this statement and the date of January 13, 1956, that there was an additional amount due your company? A. No. There would be no reason to notify anyone. We do have the delivery slips, if there is not anyone there to sign for them. When the material is delivered we leave a delivery copy there. If it is lumber, why we raise up a board and lay it between something like that.

'Q. In other words, are you telling the court that it is possible between the first day of January, 1956, and the 13th that you could have filled some orders, left material and posted it upon your books without the defendant or Mr. and Mrs. Payk knowing about it? A. We don't deliver anything without an order. Who ordered this, I couldn't say, whether it was Payks or whether it was the gentleman there, whether it was his contractor foreman, that I couldn't say.'

Edward C. Payk, as a witness for the State, testified that neither he nor his wife ordered any of the building materials used on the house, but that sometime between January 1 and January 7 he and Mrs. Payk went to the Tanner Sheet Metal Works and selected the roofing material which was furnished by Timmons and delivered 'to the premises sometime after that,' and 'they' started to put it on the house on January 5, 1956, and it was completed by the 6th or 7th by appellant's workmen. This witness did not remember whether or not he had received a statement for the roofing between January 1 and January 13, but to his knowledge the bill for it had not been paid.

Stella Payk testified, on rebuttal for the State, that the property was appraised 'on the 7th' and 'the roofing was on the house' at that time, and it had been laid on January 5th and 6th and that the bill for the roofing had not been paid at the time of the trial.

Appellant...