People v. Neumann, 51 N.Y.2d 658 (1980)

In a perjury trial, the falsity of a witness’s testimony is determined by the meaning of the words used within the context of the questions asked and answers given.

Summary

The case concerns perjury charges against Neumann, the Acting Supervisor of the Prospect Park Zoo. He testified at a Department of Investigation hearing about alleged animal abuse at the zoo. Specifically, he denied ever discharging a firearm at pigeons or within the zoo’s confines. However, subordinates swore that Neumann had shot at pigeons with a pellet gun and rats with a .22 caliber rifle. The New York Court of Appeals held that the jury should decide whether Neumann’s denial was intentionally false, considering the context of the questioning. The court reasoned that the term “firearm” was used interchangeably with “weapon” and included a tranquilizer gun. The court emphasized that the meaning of words must be gleaned from the context in which they are used and not based on a subjective, self-serving definition provided by the defendant.

Facts

Neumann was the Acting Supervisor of the Prospect Park Zoo.

The NYC Department of Investigation held a hearing regarding animal abuse allegations at the zoo.

Investigator Roche obtained sworn statements from zoo employees stating that Neumann shot at pigeons with a pellet gun and rats with a .22 caliber rifle.

During the hearing, Neumann denied ever discharging a “firearm” at pigeons or within the zoo’s confines, except for a tranquilizer gun.

Neumann also denied owning a .22 caliber rifle or a pellet gun.

Roche reminded Neumann of the penalties for perjury and offered him the chance to recant, but he refused.

Procedural History

Neumann was indicted on two counts of perjury.

The trial court submitted both counts to the jury, instructing them to determine what Neumann meant when he denied discharging a firearm.

Neumann was convicted on both counts.

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the defendant’s testimony was intentionally false when he denied discharging a firearm, considering that the term “firearm” was used in a broader context than its strict legal definition.

Holding

Yes, because it was a question for the jury to determine, based on the context of the questions and answers, whether Neumann’s testimony was intentionally false when he denied discharging a firearm, even if a .22 caliber rifle and a pellet gun do not strictly fall under the Penal Law definition of “firearm”.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the Penal Law definition of “firearm” (§ 265.00, subd 3) applies specifically to articles concerning possession, use, and purchase of firearms and dangerous weapons, not to perjury prosecutions, unless the questions or answers specifically refer to that definition. The court distinguished this case from Bronston v. United States, where the answer was literally true but unresponsive.

The court emphasized that the meaning of words should be gleaned from the context in which they are used. Quoting Justice Holmes in Towne v. Eisner, the court stated, “A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.”

The court noted that the interchangeable use of “weapon” and “firearm” during the questioning, along with references to a tranquilizer gun, a pellet gun, and a .22 caliber rifle, suggested a broader understanding of the term “firearm”. The fact that Neumann himself used the term “firearm” when asked about using a .22 in the last year further supported this interpretation.

The court concluded that there was ample evidence for the jury to determine that Neumann used the term “firearm” in a broad enough sense to include both a .22 caliber rifle and an air-powered pellet gun, and that he was not confused by the Penal Law or dictionary definition of the term. Therefore, the conviction was affirmed.