1DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/02/11 - Feb 11, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/02/11

California First District Court of Appeal 45 min 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the legal issue surrounding the perjury and forged instrument charge in People v. Matthew David Langley?

Allison M. Tucker 0:03

Good morning everyone. The Court of Appeal, State of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, is now in session. The Honorable Allison M. Tucker presiding. Good morning, everyone. Welcome. And I'd like to acknowledge that with me on the virtual bench this morning are my colleagues, Justice Joanna Petru and Justice Victor Rodriguez. There will be a panel change after the first case. I'd like to call the first case, the which is listed in the calendar as the people versus Matthew David Foster, but my understanding is that the trial court confirmed. That the defendant's legal name is Matthew David Langley, so I will call the matter as the people versus Matthew David Langley. May I have appearances, please.

Stanley Radke 0:52

Morning, Your Honor. Stanley Radke appearing on behalf of the appellant.

Terra Mahesh 0:57

Uh good morning,

Allison M. Tucker 0:57

Your

Terra Mahesh 0:58

Honor, Terra Mahesh. Uh on

Allison M. Tucker 0:59

behalf of Responded the People. Good morning to both of you. As you know, the matter's down for ten minutes. Mr. Rodka, would you like to reserve some of that time for rebuttal?

Stanley Radke 1:09

Yes, Your Honor, I would if I could have two minutes.

Allison M. Tucker 1:11

Absolutely. We'll try to help you keep track of time and the virtual microphone is yours.

Stanley Radke 1:19

Good morning, Your Honors. Uh my name is Stanley Radke. May it please the court. I'm here on behalf of Matthew David Foster slash Langley. Uh this is a matter that came uh from a jury trial out of uh Mendocino County. And I thank you for the tentative opinion. I have read it and I have two issues that I want to raise which I believe the tentative uh has not correctly addressed. And I will start with the first one and I will cite to the first sentence in the tentative, which says a jury convicted Matthew David Langley of perjury and offering a forged instrument. That is correct in part, but if you actually read the jury verdict, if you read the calcrum instruction that was given, if you read the amended information that was charged and read to the jury, it is a false or forged instrument.

Stanley Radke 2:15

So there are two ways under Penal Code Section fifteen. And again, this is the argument under the Williamson rule is that this is a more general statute than the Vehicle Code Section Twenty. What shit? Appellant is raised as the uh charge that the more specific statute that should have been charged in this case. So The court is correct if the if the district attorney actually charged and convicted mister Langley of a forged instrument, but that's not how the case was presented to the jury. That's not how the Calcrim and so Again, this is the s the more general statute, so we don't know and there was a a unanimity instruction that was read to the jury, so they had to agree on either false or forged, but we don't know which one.

Stanley Radke 3:07

So again, I think that the Calcrim i uh it's a Pellants position that the the Calcrim The jury verdict shows that the general statute could have convicted him under either theory and the more specific statute, vehicle code twenty, should have been the one and and that this was error at the trial court level. That's the first argument. And if I can, I'll I'll move on to the second argument, and that goes on to the uh impeachment of Mr. Langley's testimony with the two DUIs. The first DOI that happened in twenty thirті. even though it was a felony and had a enhancement to it. Was not a CIMT. Categorically it was not a crime involving moral turpitude, and it was clear error to allow mister Langley to impeach with that first DUI of twenty thirteen.

Stanley Radke 4:08

It's also appellant's position that the second one in twenty nineteen also w should not have been held to be crime involving moral turpitude. And I understand in the tentative the court said, Yeah, okay, it may have been a mistake, but it was a harmless error. It's appellants argument that it was not harmless because this was a credibility determination between the two witnesses, primary witnesses. You had some law enforcement talking about the documents that were uh filed with the DMV. But the question came down to at least as far as one hundred fifteen, Penal Code Section one fifteen, which is a specific intent.