Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractdefendantstatutetestimonymotion
contractdefendantstatutetestimonymotion

Related Cases

Commonwealth v. Garner, 490 Mass. 90, 188 N.E.3d 965
View Case »
People v. Frye, 18 Cal.4th 894, 959 P.2d 183, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5949, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8259
View Case »
People v. Futterman, 86 A.D.2d 70, 449 N.Y.S.2d 108
View Case »
United States v. Delreal-Ordones, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 1998 WL 36030622
View Case »
United States v. Gillis, 938 F.3d 1181, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 311
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Com. v. Bessette, 345 Mass. 358, 187 N.E.2d 810

Facts

Rodolphe G. Bessette, the Director of the Division of Waterways, faced three indictments for perjury related to his testimony before the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works. The testimony in question was given during a proceeding held under G.L. c. 31, § 43(a), where Bessette allegedly denied knowledge of the circumvention of standard specifications in a contract. The judge reported motions to quash the indictments, expressing doubts about the authority of the Commissioner to administer oaths and the sufficiency of the indictments.

The Director of the Division of Waterways in the Department of Public Works of the Commonwealth is the defendant in three indictments for perjury while testifying before the Commissioner of the department in a proceeding held pursuant to G.L. c. 31, § 43(a) (as amended through St. 1959, c. 569, § 1). The defendant filed motions to quash which the judge has reported, without decision, on ‘important questions of law,’ stating, ‘I am of the opinion that there is grave doubt as to the authority of the Commissioner of Public Works to administer an oath in a proceeding under Section 43 of Chapter 31 of the General Laws and that there is further doubt as to whether the indictments set forth an offense with the particularity, definiteness and certainty required by law.’

Issue

Did the indictments against Bessette for perjury provide the required particularity, definiteness, and certainty as mandated by law?

Did the indictments against Bessette for perjury provide the required particularity, definiteness, and certainty as mandated by law?

Rule

Indictments for perjury must set forth the offense with particularity, definiteness, and certainty, as required by law, and the authority to administer oaths in such proceedings is granted to the Commissioner by the State Administrative Procedure Act.

Indictments for perjury must set forth the offense with particularity, definiteness, and certainty, as required by law, and the authority to administer oaths in such proceedings is granted to the Commissioner by the State Administrative Procedure Act.

Analysis

The court analyzed the indictments and found that each one named a specific contract and detailed the allegedly false testimony given by Bessette. The court noted that the term 'circumvention' was adequately defined within the context of the indictments, and the charges were sufficiently clear to inform Bessette of the nature of the accusations against him. The court also addressed the defendant's concerns regarding the authority of the Commissioner to administer oaths, concluding that the proceedings were valid under the applicable statutes.

The court analyzed the indictments and found that each one named a specific contract and detailed the allegedly false testimony given by Bessette. The court noted that the term 'circumvention' was adequately defined within the context of the indictments, and the charges were sufficiently clear to inform Bessette of the nature of the accusations against him. The court also addressed the defendant's concerns regarding the authority of the Commissioner to administer oaths, concluding that the proceedings were valid under the applicable statutes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court denied the motions to quash the indictments, affirming that the charges against Bessette were sufficiently detailed and that the Commissioner had the authority to administer oaths in the proceedings.

The motions to quash should be denied.

Who won?

The Commonwealth prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the validity of the perjury indictments against Bessette, finding that they met the necessary legal standards.

The Commonwealth prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the validity of the perjury indictments against Bessette, finding that they met the necessary legal standards.

You must be