PEOPLE v. HEDGECOCK (1988)

Supreme Court of California,In Bank.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. Roger HEDGECOCK, Appellant. IN RE: Roger HEDGECOCK on Habeas Corpus.

Nos. D004000, D005661 and S005882.

Decided: August 19, 1988

Appellant's petition for review GRANTED.

Respondent's petition for review GRANTED.

Briefing and oral argument should be limited to the following issues:

I. (A) Is the materiality element of the crime of perjury a legal question for the court or a factual question for the jury?

(B) Does removal of the materiality question from the jury amount to error under People v. Figueroa (1986) 41 Cal.3d 714, 224 Cal.Rptr. 719, 715 P.2d 680?

(C) Should the principles expressed in People v. Figueroa (1986) 41 Cal.3d 714, 224 Cal.Rptr. 719, 715 P.2d 680 be applied retroactively to this case?

II. (A) Is it an abuse of discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing when a defendant in a criminal case moves for a new trial based on juror declarations showing bailiff misconduct during deliberations?

(B) What is the proper scope of such an evidentiary hearing?

LUCAS, C.J., and MOSK, PANELLI, ARGUELLES, EAGLESON and KAUFMAN, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network