Слике страница
PDF
ePub

TITLE VII.

OF CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE.

Chapter I. BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION, §§ 92-100.
II. RESCUE, §§ 101, 102.

III. ESCAPES, AND AIDING THEREIN, §§ 105-111.

IV. FORGING, STEALING, MUTILATING, AND FALSIFYING JUDICIAL AND PUBLIC RECORDS
AND DOCUMENTS, §§ 113-117.

[blocks in formation]

V.

PERJURY AND SUBORNATION OF PERJURY, §§ 118-129.

VII.

OTHER OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE, §§ 142-181. VIII. CONSPIRACY, §§ 182-185.

CHAPTER I.

BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION.

§ 92. Giving bribes to judges, jurors, ref- § 97. Justice or constable purchasing judg

erees, etc.

§ 93. Receiving bribes by judicial officers, jurors, etc.

§ 94. Extortion. Misconduct of judicial officers. Stenographers.

§ 95. Improper attempts to influence jurors, referees, etc.

§ 96. Misconduct of jurors, referees, etc.

ment.

[blocks in formation]

§ 92. GIVING BRIBES TO JUDGES, JURORS, REFEREES, ETC. Every person who gives or offers to give a bribe to any judicial officer, juror, referee, arbitrator, or umpire, or to any person who may be authorized by law to hear or determine any question or controversy, with intent to influence his vote, opinion, or decision upon any matter or question which is or may be brought before him for decision, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less than one nor more than ten years.

History: Enacted February 14, 1872, founded on § 106 Criminal
Practice Act (Stats. 1850, p. 242), as amended by Act April 19, 1856,
Stats. 1856, p. 220, and $$ 84, 85, 86 Criminal Practice Act, as
amended by Act April 27, 1863, Stats. 1863, p. 645.

BRIBING JUDGE, JURY, OR REFEREE.
1. Bribe-Definition of-As reward, gift.
or favor bestowed or promised.

2. Same-Offense against what.

3. Same-Bribing or offering to bribe juror.

4. Essence of bribery-Betrayal of public trust.

5. Good reputation-No defense to charge of bribery, when.

6. Indictment-Sufficiency of Charging bribery of judicial officer.

7. Same-Same-Date of commission of offense-Necessity of averment as

to.

8. Money coming from third person-No less an offer to give bribe.

9. Offer to give bribe-Completes offense. 10. Officer de facto-Will not be permitted to raise question.

11, 12. Statute relating to bribery-Prior to adoption of codes.

As to attempts to bribe, see note, 97 Am. Dec. 713.

As to admission of written statement of party charged with bribery as evidence, see, post, § 926 and note.

As to bribing boards of supervisors, etc., see, post, § 165 and note.

As to bribing witness, see, post, § 137 and note.

As to construction of penal statute under code, see, ante, § 4 and note.

[blocks in formation]

1.

Bribe-Definition

of-As price, reward, gift, or favor bestowed or promised ith view to pervert judgment or corrupt conduct of judge, witness, or other person. -Randall v. Evening News Assoc., 97 Mich. 136, 56 N. W. 361.

2. Same-Offense against what.-Bribery is an offense against public justice.-State v. Duncan, 153 Ind. 318, 54 N. E. 1066. See People v. Bunkers, 2 Cal. App. 197, 84 Pac. 364, 370 (affirming judgment of conviction).

3. Same-Bribing or offering to bribe, corruptly influencing or attempting to influence juror by means of promises or assurances of any pecuniary or other advantage or by means of any threat, intimidation, persuasion, or entreaty, or by means of any communication, oral or written, had with him except in regular course of proceedings in respect to his verdict or decision in any cause or proceeding, are made by law criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment in state prison.-Matter Tyler, 64 Cal. 434, 436, 1 Pac. 884.

of

4. Essence of bribery-Betrayal of publie trust.-Essence of bribery is prostitution of public trust, betrayal of public interest, and debauchment of public conscience.-State v. Duncan, 153 Ind. 318, 54 N. E. 1066.

5. Good reputation—No defense to charge of bribery where proof establishes it as fact. In re Wellcome, 23 Mont. 450, 59 Pac. 445.

6. Indictment-Sufficiency of-Charging bribery of judicial officer.-An indictment under this section alleging that the defendant was an attorney, engaged in defending a prosecution before a justice of the peace,

and that the defendant offered to pay such Justice "a portion of the fee which he would receive," if such justice would dismiss the prosecution, is held to sufficiently state the offense herein defined.-People v. Vincilione, 17 Cal. App. 514, 120 Pac. 438.

7. Same-Same-Date of commission of offense-Necessity of averment as to.Where time is not of the essence of the offense, the precise date need not be set forth in an action for bribery under section 92, Penal Code, and a variance of twelve days between the alleged date of the offer and the proof of the actual date is held immaterial, where both allegation and proof placed the offense within the period designated by the statute of limitations.-People v. Vincilione, 17 Cal. App. 516, 120 Pac. 43.

8. Money coming from third person-No less an offer to give bribe on part of party making such offer because money to be paid was not to come from his pocket.-People v. Northey, 77 Cal. 618, 634, 8 Am. Cr. Rep. 338, 19 Pac. 865, 20 Id. 129.

9. Offer to give bribe-Completes offense for reason that it tends to corrupt, and affects prejudicially morals of community.-People v. Ah Fook, 62 Cal. 493, 495. See Ill. Walsh v. People, 65 Ill. 58, 60, 16 Am. Rep. 569. People v. Bunkers, decision in Dept. 3, Cal. Ct. of App. (affirming judgment of conviction), rendered Nov. 16, 1905. Mo. State v. Biebusch, 32 Mo. 276. Fed. United States V. Worrall, 2 U. S. (2 Dall.) 384, 1 L. ed. 426.

10. Officer de facto-Will not be permitted to raise question as to whether or not he was an officer de jure. If one admits doing of things which produce results of bribery, he shall not escape by saying that he had no right to act at all.-State v. Duncan, 153 Ind. 318, 54 N. E. 1066. See Ind. State v. Ray, 153 Ind. 334, 54 N. E. 1067. Iowa. State v. Stone, 40 Iowa 547. N. C. State v. Long, 76 N. C. 254. Tex. Florez v. State, 11 Tex. App. 102.

11. Statutes relating to bribery-Prior to adoption of codes were, following common-law rule, strictly construed.-People ex rel. State v. Perley, 2 Cal. 564, 566, 567. 12. Distinguished: People v. Markham, 64 Cal. 157, 159, 160, 49 Am. Rep. 700, 30 Pac. 620.

§ 93. RECEIVING BRIBES BY JUDICIAL OFFICERS, JURORS, ETC. Every judicial officer, juror, referee, arbitrator, or umpire, and every person authorized by law to hear or determine any question or controversy, who asks, receives, or agrees to receive, any bribe, upon any agreement or understanding that his vote, opinion, or decision upon any matters or question which is or may be brought before him for decision, shall be influenced thereby, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less than one nor more than ten years.

History: Enacted February 14, 1872, founded upon §§ 84, 85, 86, 106 Criminal Practice Act (Stats. 1850, p. 239), as amended by Act April 27, 1863, Stats. 1863, p. 645.

RECEIVING BRIBE BY JUDICIAL OF
FICER, JUROR OR REFEREE.

1, 2. Asking for bribe-Completes offense.
3. Indictment charging juror with solicit-
ing bribe-Sufficiency of.

4. Same-Same-Certainty of indictment.
5. Same Same-Date of the offense.
6. Statutes against bribery-Designed.

1. Asking for bribe-Completes offense. -Thus, an offer by a juror in a civil cause to procure a verdict for the defendant in consideration of the payment of a specified sum of money, although showing that the accused proposed to do more than merely cast his vote as a juror for the defendant, includes an offer to promise that, in certain contingencies, he would cast his vote as a juror for the defendant, and the offense of asking a bribe as a juror is thereby made out.-People v. Squires, 99 Cal. 327, 330, 33 Pac. 1092.

2. To complete offense of bribery it is not necessary that party approached should consent to give it; mere offer upon part of party charged to make an agreement is sufficient to constitute offense.-People v. Squires, 99 Cal. 327, 330, 33 Pac. 1092. See Moseley v. State, 25 Tex. App. 515, 8 S. W. 652.

3. Indictment charging juror with 80liciting bribe-Sufficiency of.-An indictment charging juror with asking for, and agreeing to receive a bribe, as a juror, need not charge that he asked for or agreed to receive it upon any agreement or understanding with the person approached that he would cast his vote as a juror in con

sideration thereof; it is sufficient to aver that the accused offered or was ready to make such agreement or to enter into such an understanding; and it is not necessary to allege that the party approached consented to give the bribe.-People v. Squires, 99 Cal. 327, 33 Pac. 1092.

Same-Same-Date

4. Same Same-Certainty of indictment. -An indictment charging accused with asking for and soliciting a bribe as a juror, and charging the essential elements of the offense alleged as defined in the above section, is not uncertain as to whether the offense is charged under the above section or under section 96, post, of the Penal Code, which latter section does not make it an offense to solicit a bribe.People v. Squires, 99 Cal. 327, 33 Pac. 1092. 5. of offense need not be specifically charged to have been upon a day prior to the filing of the indictment, it being sufficient if it can be understood from the indictment "that the offense was committed at some time prior to the time of the finding of the indictment"; and an indictment alleging the commission of the offense upon the same day upon which the indictment is filed, sufficiently shows that the act alleged was committed prior to the finding and filing of the indictment; to accuse is to state that the act complained of was committed prior to the accusation.— People v. Squires, 99 Cal. 327, 33 Pac. 1092. See People v. Miller, 137 Cal. 242, 70 Pac. 735.

6. Statutes against bribery—Designed to punish official corruption.-Moseley v. State, 25 Tex. App. 515, 8 S. W. 652.

§ 94. EXTORTION. MISCONDUCT OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS. STENOGRAPHERS. Every judicial officer who [1] asks or receives any emolument, gratuity, or reward, or any promise thereof, except such as may be authorized by law, for doing any official act, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Every judicial officer who shall [2] ask or receive the whole or any part of the fees allowed by law to any stenographer or reporter appointed by him, or any other person, to record the proceedings of any court or investigation held by him, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall forfeit his office.

Any stenographer or reporter, appointed by any judicial officer in this state, who shall pay, or offer to pay, the whole or any part of the fees allowed him by law, for his appointment or retention in office, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be forever disqualified from holding any similar office in the courts of this state.

History: Enacted February 14, 1872; amended March 8, 1895, Stats. and Amdts. 1895, p. 30; by Code Commission, Act March 16, 1901, Stats. and Amdts. 1900-1, p. 442, held unconstitutional, see history, § 5, ante.

EXTORTION-BY JUDICIAL OFFICER.

1. Extortion at common law-Definition of.
2. Justice of peace-Is judicial officer with-
in meaning of statute.

3. Magistrates-Not permitted to demand un-
lawful fees.

4. Officer acting under color of authority— Not permitted to plead irregularity of appointment.

5. Practice-Indictment against justice of peace-When defective.

As to extortion in general, see, post, 518 et seq., and notes.

As to extortion under color of office, see note, 96 Am. Dec. 194.

As to furnishing money, entertainment, etc., to influence electors, see, ante, § 54 and note.

As to indictment for extortion, see, post, § 519 and note; 96 Am. Dec. 195, 196; 4 L. R. A. 360; 11 L R. A. 615; 11 L. R. A. 658.

As to offer to procure appointment of person to office as inducement to vote, see, ante, 55 and note.

As to threat to injure business unless money is paid as crime of extortion, see, post, § 519 and note; also, note, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 717.

1. Extortion at common law-Definition of. Extortion at common law is defined to be an abuse of public justice which consists in an officer's unlawfully taking, by color of his 'office, from any man, any

money or thing of value that is not due him, or more than is due, or before it is due, the punishment for which is fine and imprisonment, and sometimes forfeiture of office.-Ky. Commonwealth V. Mitchell, 3 Bush 25, 96 Am. Dec. 192. Mass. Commonwealth v. Bagley, 24 Mass. (7 Pick.) 279. Fed. United States v. Deaver, 14 Fed. 595; United States v. Waitz, 3 Sawy. C. C. 473, 28 Fed. Cas. 386.

2.

officer

Justice of peace-Is judicial of state within meaning of statute including "judge, justice," etc.-Lane v. State, 47 N. J. L. (18 Vr.) 362, 5 Am. Cr. Rep. 215, 1 Atl. 476.

3. Magistrate-Not permitted to demand unlawful fees.-No magistrate, in any case, civil or criminal, can rightfully demand and cause the payment of any fees other than those established by law.-Mattingley v. United States, 1 Hayw. & H. 195, 16 Fed. Cas. 1144.

4. Officer acting under color of authority-Not permitted to plead irregularity of appointment.-Person who acts as an officer and assumes an officer's duties can not avoid liability by pleading irregularity of his appointment.-Commonwealth V. Saulsbury, 152 Pa. St. 554, 25 Atl. 610.

[ocr errors][merged small]

§ 95. IMPROPER ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE JURORS, REFEREES, ETC. Every person who corruptly attempts to influence a juror, or any person summoned or drawn as a juror, or chosen as an arbitrator, or umpire, or appointed a referee, in respect to his verdict in, or decision of any cause, or proceeding, pending, or about to be brought before him, either:

1. By means of any communication, oral or written, had with him except in the regular course of proceedings;

2. By means of any book, paper, or instrument exhibited, otherwise than in the regular course of proceedings;

3. By means of any threat, intimidation, persuasion, or entreaty; or,

4. By means of any promise, or assurance of any pecuniary or other advantage;

-is punishable by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five years.

History: Enacted February 14, 1872, founded upon § 106 Criminal Practice Act (Stats. 1850, p. 242), and amended by Act April 19, 1856, Stats. 1856, p. 220; amended March 30, 1874, Stats. and Amdts. 1873-4, p. 424.

IMPROPER ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE

JUDICIAL OFFICER.

1. Agreement to procure confession of guiltFrom client on trial.

2. Evidence-Request to juror to hang jury.

[blocks in formation]

3. Indictment-Charging request to hang

jury.

4. Newspaper publication made to intimidate jury-Showing upon motion for new

trial.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

with

nounced by the above section.-People v.
Martin, Cal. App., 194 Pac. 522.
4. Newspaper publication made
clear intention to intimidate jury, and, by
abusing other jurors who had returned
verdict of acquittal, to induce jury to find
defendant guilty and impose upon him ex-
treme penalty of the law, defendant should
be allowed to make showing, upon motion
for new trial, if possible, with leave of peo-
ple, to show that such particular articles
were not read by jury, or, if they were,
jury were not influenced by them.-People
v. Murray, 85 Cal. 350, 361, 24 Pac. 666. See
People v. Goldenson, 76 Cal. 328, 353, 19 Pac.
161.

5. lation

Same-Publication during trial—Vioof defendant's rights. Where, through medium of newspaper or otherwise, attempt to influence a jury by any improper means to bring in verdict against defendant, this is violation of defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial.-People v. Murray, 85 Cal. 350, 361, 24 Pac. 666.

6. Offering bribe to juror-When does not affect trial of cause.-Where offer of bribe to juror in attendance on court, but not a juror in the particular case on trial, made by an intoxicated reporter, who was unconscious of any attempted wrong, hearing of testimony upon the attempted bribery is investigation of a matter entirely dehors the trial, and the jury were not entitled to hear testimony thereon.-People v. Kalkman, 72 Cal. 212, 214, 13 Pac. 500.

§ 96. MISCONDUCT OF JURORS, REFEREES, ETC. Every juror, or person drawn or summoned as a juror, or chosen arbitrator or umpire, or appointed referee, who either:

1. Makes any promise or agreement to give a verdict or decision for or against any party; or,

2. Wilfully and corruptly permits any communication to be made to him, or receives any book, paper, instrument, or information relating to any cause or matter pending before him, except according to the regular course of proceedings, is punishable by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five years.

History: Enacted February 14, 1872, founded upon § 106 Criminal Practice Act (Stats. 1850, p. 242), and amended by Act April 19, 1856, Stats. 1856, p. 220; amended March 30, 1874, Stats. and Amdts. 1873-4, p. 424.

MISCONDUCT OF JUROR, ARBITRATOR
OR REFEREE.

1. As to construction-Soliciting bribe not
offense under this section.

2. Bribing or offering to bribe juror-How punishable.

3, 4. Receiving unlawful communicationDuty of court where juror found guilty.

5, 6. Sending accusatory letter to members of grand jury, how punishable.

1. As to construction-To solicit bribe is not made an offense under this section. -People v. Squires, 99 Cal. 327, 330, 33 Pac. 1092.

2. Bribing or offering to bribe juror, and wilful and corrupt permission of juror of any unlawful communication to be made to him affecting his duties, are also punishable as contempts of court.-Matter Tyler, 64 Cal. 434, 436, 1 Pac. 884.

of

3. Receiving an unlawful communication -Duty of court where juror found guilty.

« ПретходнаНастави »