# People v. Hedgecock

> California Supreme Court · September 6, 1990 · 51 Cal. 3d 395

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790418

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROGER HEDGECOCK, Defendant and Appellant; In Re ROGER HEDGECOCK on Habeas Corpus
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 6, 1990
- **Citations:** 51 Cal. 3d 395; 272 Cal. Rptr. 803; 795 P.2d 1260; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 4039
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Lucas
- **Judges:** Kennard, Panelli, Eagleson, Lucas
- **Cited by:** 160 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Declined to follow by People v. Cox, 53 Cal. 3d 618 (1991).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790418

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “Penal Code section 118 prohibits both perjurious testimony under oath (the elements are set forth in CALJIC No. 7.20) and perjurious, signed declarations (covered by CALJIC No. 7.21)”
- noting that, under Georgie law, issue of materiality was normally for the jury
- holding that materiality is an issue for the jury in perjury prosecution based on errors or omissions in disclosure statements required by the Political Reform Act
- holding that materiality is an issue for the jury in peijury prosecution based on errors or omissions in disclosure statements required by the Political Reform Act
- holding that a trial court may conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding juror misconduct only if it is “necessary to resolve material, disputed issues of fact”

## Opinion text

LUCAS, C. J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I join in the second part of Justice Eagleson’s concurrence and dissent concluding that there is no basis presented for departing from the long held rule that materiality in a perjury prosecution is an issue for the court to determine. In all other respects, I join in the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790418. Public record. Not legal advice.