People v. Trozzo, 40 N.Y.2d 837 (1976)

A perjury conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally made a false statement that they did not believe to be true.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s perjury conviction, holding that the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally made a false statement under oath. The defendant, called before a grand jury investigating police corruption, denied making a statement to police officers that he was “on for” policy or numbers. The court found that the prosecutor’s questioning, while sharp, was not entrapping or deceptive, and that the defendant’s denial was purposeful and not the result of trickery or misunderstanding.

Facts

The defendant was called as a witness before a Bronx County Grand Jury investigating New York City police corruption.

At trial, two police officers testified that the defendant had stated in their presence that he was “on for” policy or numbers, but not bookmaking.

Before the grand jury, the defendant was repeatedly asked if he had made the statement attributed to him by the officers and initially claimed he could not remember.

The prosecutor then asked the defendant directly whether he had told the officers, in words or substance, that he was paying off police officers by saying he was “on for policy,” to which the defendant answered “No.”

When pressed further, the defendant added, “How could I say that if I was never on?” and affirmed that he did not make the statement because he was never involved in policy.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of perjury in the trial court.

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

The New York Court of Appeals granted review.

Issue(s)

Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally made a false statement that he did not believe to be true, thus supporting his conviction for perjury.

Holding

Yes, because the jury was privileged to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally made a false statement which he did not believe to be true, based on his grand jury testimony and the surrounding circumstances.

Court’s Reasoning

The court applied Penal Law § 210.15, which defines perjury and requires proof that the defendant made a false statement that they did not believe to be true.

The court reasoned that, despite the defendant’s initial claims of memory lapse, his ultimate denial of having made the statement, coupled with his rhetorical question, “How could I say that [I was on for policy] if I was never on?”, demonstrated a purposeful and unequivocal denial.

The court rejected the defendant’s argument that he was entrapped or tricked by the prosecutor’s questioning, finding that the examination, while “sharp and exacting,” was not deceptive.

The court emphasized that reading the defendant’s testimony as a whole, it was apparent that his denial was purposeful, not unintended, and certainly not tricked.

The dissent argued that the witness was tricked by a logic he could not understand and by questions that could not prevail over objections in an adversary proceeding to make an assertion he never intended to make.

The majority opinion highlights the importance of the defendant’s unequivocal denial and subsequent bolstering statement. This shows the distinction between a simple inability to recall (which might not be perjury) and a deliberate false statement. A key element was the defendant adding “How could I say that if I was never on?”, indicating he wasn’t just forgetting, but affirmatively denying the statement’s truth and implying he never would have said it.