California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gallardo, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 100, 239 Cal.App.4th 1333 (Cal. App. 2015):
Defendant argues that People v. Bhasin, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th 461, 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 708 is distinguishable because in Bhasin, unlike here, the fraudulent document was actually marked for identification, there was questioning and sworn testimony about the document, and the contents of the document were read into the record. We do not find this argument persuasive. Section 132, by its terms, applies to any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation whatever, which includes the January 12 family law hearing regarding wage garnishmenta
[239 Cal.App.4th 1345]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.