People v. Losinski

Colorado Court of Appeals

People v. Losinski

710 P.2d 1163, 1985 Colo. App. LEXIS 1339

CourtColorado Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 18, 1985

DocketNo. 83CA1266

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 710 P.2d 1163 (People v. Losinski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Colorado Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Losinski, 710 P.2d 1163, 1985 Colo. App. LEXIS 1339 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PIERCE, Judge.

Defendant, Joseph Losinski, appeals his conviction of first degree perjury under § 18-8-502, C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). We affirm.

The sole issue on appeal is whether § 18-8-506, C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.) was [1164]*1164complied with in the prosecution of this case. We rule that it was.

That statute, in pertinent part, states as follows:

“In any prosecution for perjury or false swearing ... falsity of a statement may not be established solely through contradiction by the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.”

It was established at trial that Losinski had visited witness Van Hook at Van Hook’s home, and had given Van Hook $100 to apply on damages due from Losin-ski to the Van Hook family as a result of an automobile accident. Witness Van Hook gave Losinski a receipt for the $100. At a civil trial which arose as the result of the automobile accident, Losinski testified that he had paid Van Hook $900 and produced a receipt for $900. This testimony and the receipt form the basis for the perjury prosecution.

At the perjury trial, Van Hook testified as to the events which took place at his home and also as to Losinski’s alleged false testimony at the civil trial. The $900 receipt was also placed in evidence, and it was established that Losinski had presented it in the civil trial. Expert testimony established that the $900 receipt was a false document which was made by altering and then photocopying the $100 receipt which had been prepared by Van Hook.

This testimony, although contradicted by other testimony, was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute that one witness and independent corroborating evidence are sufficient to establish the basis for a perjury charge. See Marrs v. People, 135 Colo. 458, 312 P.2d 505 (1957); People v. Mazza, 182 Colo. 166, 511 P.2d 885 (1973).

The judgment is affirmed.

VAN CISE and STERNBERG, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PIERCE, Judge.

Defendant, Joseph Losinski, appeals his conviction of first degree perjury under § 18-8-502, C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). We affirm.

The sole issue on appeal is whether § 18-8-506, C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.) was [1164]*1164complied with in the prosecution of this case. We rule that it was.

That statute, in pertinent part, states as follows:

“In any prosecution for perjury or false swearing ... falsity of a statement may not be established solely through contradiction by the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.”

It was established at trial that Losinski had visited witness Van Hook at Van Hook’s home, and had given Van Hook $100 to apply on damages due from Losin-ski to the Van Hook family as a result of an automobile accident. Witness Van Hook gave Losinski a receipt for the $100. At a civil trial which arose as the result of the automobile accident, Losinski testified that he had paid Van Hook $900 and produced a receipt for $900. This testimony and the receipt form the basis for the perjury prosecution.

At the perjury trial, Van Hook testified as to the events which took place at his home and also as to Losinski’s alleged false testimony at the civil trial. The $900 receipt was also placed in evidence, and it was established that Losinski had presented it in the civil trial. Expert testimony established that the $900 receipt was a false document which was made by altering and then photocopying the $100 receipt which had been prepared by Van Hook.

This testimony, although contradicted by other testimony, was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute that one witness and independent corroborating evidence are sufficient to establish the basis for a perjury charge. See Marrs v. People, 135 Colo. 458, 312 P.2d 505 (1957); People v. Mazza, 182 Colo. 166, 511 P.2d 885 (1973).

The judgment is affirmed.

VAN CISE and STERNBERG, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

710 P.2d 1163, 1985 Colo. App. LEXIS 1339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-losinski-coloctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack