Zordani v. State
| Decision Date | 16 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-776A164,3-776A164 |
| Parties | Charles ZORDANI, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Max Cohen, Cohen & Thiros, Gary, for appellant.
Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Susan J. Davis, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant Zordani was convicted of perjury in connection with bidding documents submitted to the East Chicago Park and Recreation Board. On appeal he asserts the indictment did not state facts sufficient to constitute the offense; the verdict was not sustained by the evidence; and that he was not represented by competent counsel at trial. We find no merit to these contentions. We therefore affirm.
Zordani was indicted under IC 35-1-90-1 which provides:
"Whoever, having taken a lawful oath or affirmation in any matter in which, by law, an oath or affirmation may be required, shall, upon such oath or affirmation, swear or affirm wilfully, corruptly and falsely touching a matter material to the point in question, shall be deemed guilty of perjury, and, on conviction, shall be imprisoned in the state prison for not less than one (1) nor more than ten (10) years."
The basis for the indictment arises from the provisions of IC 5-16-1-2 which require that bidders for public works projects costing more than $5000 submit a sworn statement of their experience, the proposed plan for performing the work, the equipment they have available for the work and a financial statement. Zordani was convicted of Count II of the indictment which alleged that in answer to the question "What projects has your organization completed?" contained in the "Standard Questionnaires and Financial Statement for Bidders" prescribed by the State Board of Accounts, he had unlawfully, wilfully and corruptly made false answers.
Appellant's brief does not aver nor does the record disclose that a motion to dismiss was ever filed to attack the sufficiency of the indictment. Accordingly, no such issue is presented for our review. IC 35-3.1-1-4; Lisenko v. State (1976), Ind., 355 N.E.2d 841. 1
Zordani asserts the evidence was insufficient to permit findings (a) that he took an oath; (b) that the false statement was material; and, (c) that he had an intent to deceive.
State's Exhibit 3 was the standard questionnaire. It was executed by Zordani. Immediately below his signature was a jurat executed by Lori Wohadlo, a notary public, which stated:
"Charles J. Zordani being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is owner of the above Metro Construction Company and that the answers to the questions in the foregoing questionnaires and all statements contained therein are true and correct."
Wohadlo was Zordani's secretary.
Zordani premises his first point upon the fact that at trial Ms. Wohadlo testified that she did not actually administer an oath. This assertion, however, merely raises a question of credibility. The jury could well have determined that the jurat spoke the truth. We will not second guess such determinations on appeal.
Zordani's argument that the state failed to prove the materiality of the false statements is also specious. It is premised upon the assertion that there was no evidence that the Park and Recreation Board relied upon the answers to the questionnaire or even looked at them. That, however, is not the significant point.
Clearly the extent and type of a contract bidder's prior experience are material to the determination of whether he is the best bidder for the award of a contract. See Broomes v. City of East Chicago (1976), Ind.App., 342 N.E.2d 893. The number and type of prior projects alone are helpful. In addition, they furnish a list of references regarding quality of work and problems that may be encountered.
Furthermore, it is unnecessary to sustain the charge to establish that the Board indeed scrutinized the documents or relied upon the false statements in awarding the contract. It is sufficient that a false statement is made regarding a material matter and that the false statement is reasonably calculated to mislead the Board in determining who is the best bidder. Richardson v. State (1971), 255 Ind. 655, 266 N.E.2d 51; Davis v. State (1941), 218 Ind. 506, 34 N.E.2d 23; State v. Wilson (1901), 156 Ind. 343, 59 N.E. 932.
Finally, the jury could well have inferred the necessary intent since the evidence supported reasonable inferences that Zordani made false statements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilke v. State, 1-1085A258
...courts define materiality to mean that which is reasonably calculated to mislead an investigation. Zordani v. State of Indiana (1978), 175 Ind.App. 297, 300, 371 N.E.2d 396, 399, trans. denied. The federal courts hold that a false statement is material if it "has the natural effect or tende......
-
Jones v. State
...not disclose that he ever made such a motion. Accordingly, no such issue is presented for our review. See Zordani v. State, 175 Ind. App. 297, 298-99, 371 N.E.2d 396, 398 (1978); see also Gibbs v. State, 483 N.E.2d 1365, 1366-67 (Ind.1985) (noting that untimely filing of such a motion cause......
-
Taylor v. Taylor
...he is relieved from his obligation of confidentiality and is free to respond to the assertions of incompetence. Zordani v. State (1978), 175 Ind.App. 297, 371 N.E.2d 396. Patrick has not shown that his representation of Josephine was directly under attack by her. Additionally, Patrick has f......
-
State v. Fields
...to police, Wilke, supra, and to sworn responses to questionnaires submitted by bidders for public works projects. Zordani v. State (1978), 175 Ind.App. 297, 371 N.E.2d 396. The trial court could, and did, consider material outside the pleadings which disclosed that the grand jury was called......