MATTHEWS
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Matthews was convicted of perjury based on testimony given during a trial, but the indictment alleged he gave false testimony on June 7th while evidence showed it was actually given on June 6th. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the one-day variance between the alleged and actual date of testimony was not material because the trial itself was accurately described and identified—unlike cases involving records or documents whose dates must match exactly for identification purposes.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Peckham,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The only point suggested by counsel for plaintiff in error upon which to obtain a reversal of the judgment is the fact of the variance between the indictment and the proof as to the day when the alleged perjury was committed. "We think the decision of the court below was clearly right. The cases cited by counsel for plaintiff in error, in regard to the necessity for specific and accurate proof of the very day upon which the perjury was alleged to have been committed, were those in relation to records, depositions or affidavits which were to be identified by the day on which they were made or taken. Under such circumstances a misdescription of the date of the particular record, deposition or affidavit has been sometimes held fatal on the ground, substantially, that it has not been identified as the particular one in which the perjury is alleged to have been committed, because the record or other paper itself bears one date and the indictment describing it bears another. It is not the same record, and therefore there is variance, which has been held fatal to a conviction.
In this case there was no record which was contradicted by the proof given upon this trial. The trial was described accurately, the parties to it, the court in which it took place, the term and the time at which it was tried, and the only difference between the allegation in the indictment and the proof in the case is that during this trial, which occupied several days, the plaintiff in error swore on the 6th of June instead of on the 7th, as alleged in the indictment, to the matter which was alleged to be false. The date upon which the evidence was given, which was alleged to have been false, appeared by the stenographer’s minutes, who took the evidence on the'trial, to have been the 6th of June. This is no record, and it is not within the principle upon which the cases relied upon by counsel for plaintiff in error were decided. Such a variance as appears in this case is not material. Rex v. Coppard, 3 C. & P. 59; Keator v. People, 32 Michigan, 484; People v. Hoag, 2 Parker’s Cr. Rep. (N. Y.) 10. It will be seen that the time was stated under a videlicet in this indictment, although that fact is probably not very material. The opinion written by the learned judge in denying the motion for a new trial and in arrest of judgment says all that is necessary to be said in this case, and we concur entirely in the conclusion reached by him. 68 Fed. Rep. 880.
The judgment must be
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex parte Cleio Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (U.S. 1941)…inquire whether petitioner was denied procedural due process in the second trial. Compare Hardy v. United States, 186 U. S. 224, 225; Ledbetter v. United States, 170 U. S. 606, 612; Hodgson v. Vermont, 168 U. S. 262, 271; Matthews v. United States, 161 U. S. 500. The motion for leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus is therefore denied. Motion denied. About a week later petitioner received the following reply from the legal investigator: “Your letter of November 18, 1940, addressed to the Cle…
-
Dorsey v. Gill, 148 F.2d 857 (D.C. Cir. 1945)…Hardy v. United States, 186 U.S. 224, 225, 22 S.Ct. 889, 46 L.Ed. 1137; Ledbetter v. United States, 170 U.S. 606, 612, 18 S.Ct. 774, 776, 42 L.Ed. 1162; Hodgson v. Vermont, 168 U.S. 262, 271, 18 S.Ct. 80, 82, 42 L.Ed. 461; Matthews v. United States, 161 U.S. 500, 16 S.Ct. 640, 40 L.Ed. 786.” [Italics supplied] In several more recent cases, the rule has been stated or rec [*875] oguized by the Supreme Cburt,103 and by other federal courts.104 No question is raised, on this appeal, as to the original jurisdi…
-
Greenwood Cnty. v. Duke Power Co., 81 F.2d 986 (4th Cir. 1936)…ed by the purposes and plans of the board, but by the validity of what is about to be done under the attacked contracts.” See, also, Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 498, 16 S.Ct. 631, 40 L.Ed. 780; Spalding v. Dickinson, 161 U.S. 499, 16 S.Ct. 637, 40 L.Ed. 786; West v. Hitchcock, 205 U.S. 80, 85, 86, 27 S.Ct. 423, 51 L.Ed. 718. It is, of course, true that, as Congress may not encroach upon the reserved powers of the states, officers acting under its authority may not so encroach; and the authority of suc…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence