State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 31 July 1860
• Citation: 30 Mo. 364
• Parties: THE STATE, Respondent, v. WILLIAMS, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

30 Mo. 364

THE STATE, Respondent,

v.WILLIAMS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1860.

1. Perjury is, by statute, a felony. An indictment for perjury must charge that the act of false swearing was done feloniously.

2. It is the province of the court, and not of the jury, to determine whether the fact sworn to was material in the judicial proceeding in which the perjury is alleged to have been committed.

3. In trials for perjury it is improper to instruct the jury that the law presumes the declarations of a party against himself to be true, when the object of such an instruction is to make the declarations evidence of the falsity of the oath. The weight of such declarations is to be determined by the jury. Of themselves they are not sufficient to convict one of perjury.

Appeal from Miller Circuit Court.

The defendant Williams was indicted at the October term, 1859, of the Miller circuit court for perjury alleged to have been committed by him in delivering his testimony before the grand jury at the October term, 1858, of said court, touching a charge of forgery preferred against one Charles H. Ingram, then undergoing investigation. The matter upon which the perjury was assigned was that Williams falsely and corruptly swore that Charles H. Ingram had falsely counterfeited and forged a promissory note, purporting to have been executed by J. Y. Williams & Co.; that said Ingram was not at the time of signing of said note, and never was, a copartner of his; and that he had no authority to sign the name of J. Y. Williams to the note. The act of false swearing charged was not alleged to have been done feloniously. The indictment concludes by charging that the defendant did falsely, feloniously, &c., commit wilful and corrupt perjury.

The court, on motion of the circuit attorney, gave the following instructions among others: “1. If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant appeared and was duly sworn as a witness before the grand jury of Miller county, at the October term, 1858, of the circuit court within and for said county, and that the said defendant gave testimony before said grand jury upon a charge of forgery then pending before said grand jury against one Charles H. Ingram in regard to the execution by said Ingram of the note read in evidence; and that the said defendant did before said grand jury depose and swear, among other things, in substance and to the effect charged in said indictment, and that said statements and facts, or the substance and effect of any one of said statements and facts, being material to the determination of the issue then pending before said grand jury upon said charge of forgery, was wilfully, knowingly and corruptly false, the jury must find the defendant guilty, and in that case may assess his punishment by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period of years not less than two nor more than seven. 4. In considering the declarations and admissions of defendant, the jury must consider them altogether. He is entitled to the benefit of what he said for himself, if true; as the state is of any thing he said against himself, in any conversation proved by the State. What he said against himself the law presumes to be true, because against himself; but what he said for himself the jury are not bound to believe because said in a conversation proved by the State; they may believe or disbelieve it, as it is shown to be true or false by the evidence in the case.”

The defendant was found guilty.

Parsons, for appellant.

I. It was the province of the court, and not of the jury, to determine the materiality of the alleged false matter sworn to. The court should have declared to the jury what part of the alleged false oath was material to the questions pending before the grand jury. The first instruction for the State was erroneous. There...