People v. Rosner, 67 N.Y.2d 290 (1986)

In New York, a perjury conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, provided that evidence is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the two-witness rule (Penal Law § 210.50) does not bar such a conviction.

Summary

Rosner was convicted of perjury for false statements made to a grand jury investigating a homicide. The prosecution’s case relied on circumstantial evidence to prove that Rosner lied about his interactions with John Bonizio, who was involved in the assault that led to the victim’s death. Rosner argued that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because they relied entirely on circumstantial evidence and did not produce a witness who directly contradicted his statements. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to prove perjury, and the two-witness rule only requires corroboration of a witness testifying to the falsity of the defendant’s statement, not direct evidence.

Facts

Rosner complained to the police about Darren McNamara harassing his daughter. He expressed an intent to handle the situation himself if the police couldn’t. The next day, after the officer said he couldn’t find McNamara, Rosner stated he had “two guys that can handle it.” That evening, McNamara was assaulted by John Bonizio, a friend and former employee of Rosner’s, who beat him with a baseball bat, telling him to stay away from Rosner’s daughter. McNamara died as a result of the beating. Bonizio was later seen entering Rosner’s apartment. Before the grand jury, Rosner denied asking Bonizio to contact McNamara or speaking to Bonizio about McNamara on August 25th.

Procedural History

Rosner was indicted for perjury based on his grand jury testimony. At trial, the People presented circumstantial evidence linking Rosner to Bonizio and the assault on McNamara. Rosner moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the prosecution’s case was entirely circumstantial. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury found Rosner guilty. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

Issue(s)

Whether a perjury conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, where the alleged falsity of the defendant’s statements was capable of being proved by direct evidence.

Holding

Yes, because New York law does not prohibit the use of circumstantial evidence to prove perjury, and the two-witness rule only requires corroboration of a witness who testifies to the falsity of the defendant’s statement; it does not mandate direct evidence of the perjury.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals rejected Rosner’s argument that circumstantial evidence is generally insufficient to prove perjury. The court emphasized that Penal Law § 210.50, the two-witness rule, only requires corroboration of a witness testifying to the falsity of the defendant’s statement. It does not preclude the prosecution from relying on circumstantial evidence. The court explicitly stated, “That holding is consistent with the limited purpose Penal Law § 210.50 serves in this State. The common-law rule was retained by the Legislature to protect ‘honest witnesses’ from unfounded, retaliatory complaints of perjury by ‘defeated litigants’.” The court clarified that People v. Doody, which Rosner cited, did not create a narrow exception for cases inherently incapable of direct proof. The court found that the two-witness rule is analogous to the accomplice rule, both designed to prevent conviction solely on the testimony of a witness with a motive to fabricate. The court concluded that the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish Rosner’s guilt, and the two-witness rule did not require the People to produce direct testimony. The court emphasized that the purpose of the two-witness rule is to protect honest witnesses from retaliatory perjury claims, not to prevent perjury convictions based on strong circumstantial evidence.