## Facts

- During voir dire, the judge asked the panel: “Anybody in your immediate family or yourself been arrested?”
- Angelo Casabar Cabe, a prospective juror under oath, answered: “One of my boys was arrested.”
- The answer was true because one of Cabe’s sons had been arrested, but Cabe did not disclose that he himself had previously been arrested.
- Later, the judge asked a general question about anything that could cause bias; Cabe did not respond.
- The prosecution charged Cabe by information with perjury under California Penal Code § 118 based on his voir dire answer.
- Cabe moved to set aside the information under Penal Code § 995, arguing the statement was literally true and therefore could not constitute perjury.
- The trial court denied the § 995 motion, and Cabe sought a writ of mandate directing dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether a literally true but incomplete and arguably misleading voir dire answer can support a perjury charge under Penal Code § 118 when the alleged falsity arises from omission or implication rather than an explicit false statement.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of mandate.
- The court held that Cabe’s answer, though potentially misleading by negative implication, was literally true and therefore could not support perjury.
- The court directed the superior court to set aside the perjury information.

## Legal Principles

- Penal Code § 118 requires proof of a willful statement, under oath, of a material matter that the declarant knows to be false.
- Perjury cannot be predicated on an answer that is literally true, even if it is unresponsive or misleading by omission or implication.
- Where questioning is compound or an answer appears incomplete, the proper remedy is clarifying follow-up questions, not expanding perjury to cover truthful statements that create a misleading impression.
- Prospective jurors may be subject to perjury liability for affirmative false statements during voir dire, but not for a truthful statement that omits additional facts.

## Conclusion

Because Cabe’s voir dire answer accurately stated that his son had been arrested and contained no explicit falsehood, the statutory element of a knowingly false statement was absent; the perjury charge could not stand, and the information had to be set aside.


Cabe v. Superior Court, 63 Cal. App. 4th 732, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 331 (Ct. App. 1998)