People v. Campell

Supreme Court of Judicature of the State of New-York · 1832 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawPerjuryIndictment pleadingperjuryindictmentpleadingmaterialityoath

Facts

The indictment charged that Robert Campbell, after being challenged as to his right to vote, was duly sworn before a board authorized to administer the oath. It alleged that he falsely swore, among other things, that he was a natural born or naturalized citizen of New York or of one of the United States. The assignment of perjury was confined to his citizenship, and the indictment alleged that in truth he was not a natural born or naturalized citizen. The oath was taken under the 1827 act amending an earlier 1822 act concerning election oaths.

Issue

Whether the indictment for perjury was legally sufficient where it alleged that Campbell took the oath before and by a board authorized to administer it, set out only the substance of the false matter regarding citizenship rather than the entire oath, and did not expressly aver materiality though materiality appeared on the face of the record. Also, whether false swearing under the 1827 act remained perjury under the 1822 act.

Rule

For perjury pleading, it is sufficient to allege that the defendant took the oath before an officer or board having competent authority to administer it; the indictment need not set out the whole oath but only the material parts alleged to be false; and materiality need not be expressly averred if it clearly appears on the face of the record. Where a later statute merely amends and does not repeal an earlier statute making false swearing in a prescribed oath perjury, the earlier provision remains in force except insofar as inconsistent with the amendment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Lena Ortiz was challenged when she attempted to cast a ballot in a local election. A perjury indictment later alleged that she "was duly sworn before the precinct review board, the board then being duly authorized and empowered to administer such oath," and that she falsely stated she met the statutory qualifications to vote.

Lena moves to quash, arguing the indictment is defective because it does not separately state in formal terms that the board actually administered the oath. How should the court rule?

Explanation. A perjury indictment is sufficient if it alleges that the defendant took the oath before an officer or board having competent authority to administer it. The majority treated an allegation that the defendant was sworn before a duly authorized board as enough, even without more formal phrasing. (Derived from People v. Campell (n.d.).)