People v. Shah

Summary

While working as a temporary physician at a health clinic, Dr. Nickesh Pravin Shah was stopped by a California Highway Patrol officer for speeding. Shah told the officer that he was only speeding because of a medical emergency at the clinic. Unpersuaded, the officer asked Shah who he could contact to confirm this information. Shah provided the officer with his supervisor's information, and upon being called the supervisor told the officer that there was no emergency. The officer cited Shah for speeding, but did share that if Shah obtained documentation showing the medical emergency, the citation might be dismissed. Shah later prepared a forged letter, stating that there was an emergency, and misrepresented the contents of it to get his supervisor's signature. Shah submitted this forged document at trial. Unpersuaded, the traffic court judge found Shah guilty. The prosecutor then fled a felony complaint against Shah, charging him with violating California Penal Code section 132 and 134 for preparing and offering false and fraudulent evidence. Shah was found guilty of such violations by jury. Shah appealed, contending that the court erred by not including materiality as an element of either offense.

Affirmed. Materiality is not an element to be proven in order to be convicted for offenses under Section 132 and 134 of the Penal Code. Here, Shah argued that while there was no express requirement to include materiality in the offenses, a materiality requirement must be implied to save the statues from being unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. This court found this argument to lack merit. Additionally, this court found Shah's reliance on People v. McKenna to be misguided, for in McKenna, the issue of a materiality requirement was never raised and the court her merely assumed the issue of materiality pertained to those charges for purposes of the decision. Additionally, this court determined that even though there was no express authority regarding a materiality requirement, several appellate decisions have applied such statutes without referencing materiality and accordingly affirmed.

— Alysia Anderson