## Facts

- Samuel Darcy, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Ukraine (Russia), had used multiple versions of his name, including forms of “Dardeck” and “Darcy,” and had given differing birthplaces on various documents.
- California voter registration required a prospective voter to complete an affidavit of registration under oath, including identifying information such as name and place of birth.
- In his sworn voter registration affidavit, Darcy stated his name was “Sam Darcy” and his birthplace was “New York.”
- The prosecution introduced prior statements and documents reflecting Darcy’s use of other names and foreign birthplace to prove falsity and knowledge.
- Darcy was indicted for perjury under California Penal Code § 118 based on the alleged false statements in the affidavit.
- A jury convicted Darcy; the trial court denied his motion for a new trial.
- On appeal, Darcy challenged the indictment’s sufficiency, the materiality of the alleged false statements, asserted an equal protection/selective prosecution claim tied to political targeting, and alleged trial errors.

## Issues

1. Whether false statements about a registrant’s name and birthplace in a sworn voter registration affidavit are material facts supporting perjury under Penal Code § 118.
2. Whether the indictment adequately alleged perjury, including materiality and falsity, so as to charge a public offense.
3. Whether prosecuting Darcy, allegedly when others who made similar misstatements were not prosecuted, denied equal protection due to discriminatory/selective enforcement based on political affiliation.
4. Whether evidentiary rulings or jury instructions constituted reversible error.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction and the order denying a new trial.
- The court held that false statements as to name and birthplace on a voter registration affidavit were material for perjury purposes.
- The court held the indictment sufficiently alleged the elements of perjury, including that the statements were material and knowingly false.
- The court rejected the equal protection/selective prosecution claim for lack of proof of discriminatory enforcement policy or systematic targeting.
- The court found no reversible error in the challenged evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

## Legal Principles

- For perjury, a statement is material if it is capable of influencing the official action or decision involved; materiality does not require proof that the false statement actually changed the outcome.
- In voter registration, identifying information such as name and birthplace is material because it bears on identity verification, detection of duplicate or fraudulent registrations, and assessment of citizenship status.
- An indictment for perjury is sufficient when it alleges a knowingly false statement made under oath in a proceeding or document where the statement is required by law and is alleged to be material; it need not plead the entire regulatory scheme in detail.
- Selective prosecution violates equal protection only upon a showing of invidious discrimination or a systematic pattern/policy of discriminatory enforcement; disparate prosecution alone does not establish a constitutional violation.
- Prior inconsistent sworn statements and related documents may be admitted to prove falsity, knowledge, and intent in a perjury prosecution when relevant and properly authenticated.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Darcy’s perjury conviction based on false identity-related statements in a sworn voter registration affidavit, applying a broad materiality standard tied to the affidavit’s role in verifying voter qualifications and preventing fraud, and rejecting both an indictment challenge and an equal protection claim premised on alleged selective enforcement.


People v. Darcy, 59 Cal. App. 2d 342, 139 P.2d 118 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943)