Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Licata v. State
Citations: 661 P.2d 1306; 99 Nev. 331; 1983 Nev. LEXIS 444Docket: 13884
Court: Nevada Supreme Court; April 29, 1983; Nevada; State Supreme Court
Robert A. Licata was convicted of perjury for providing false statements during an insurance claim related to a burglary of his home. After returning from vacation in July 1978, Licata discovered his home had been burglarized and subsequently filed an insurance claim for stolen items, including a Sony television and a Betamax recorder. He submitted receipts indicating the items were purchased from Desert T.V. and Appliance, but the insurance adjuster found that his purchase order had been cancelled. When asked to give a sworn statement, Licata reiterated that the items were purchased as stated. The insurance company rejected his claim based on this false statement, leading to charges of perjury and making a false insurance claim. At trial, Licata testified he had forgotten about the cancelled order and had actually bought the items from a private individual, with witnesses confirming they saw the items in his home before the burglary. He was acquitted of the false insurance claim but convicted of perjury. Licata appealed the conviction, arguing that the perjury charge was improperly applied. The court analyzed NRS 199.120, which defines perjury as a false statement made under oath in a legally mandated setting. The court concluded that Licata's statement to the insurance company's attorney was not made under a legally required oath, thus failing to meet the statutory definition of perjury. The court cited similar rulings from various jurisdictions, affirming that a perjury conviction requires a statement made under oath by law. Since this interpretation rendered the perjury charge invalid, the court reversed Licata's conviction without addressing other issues raised in the appeal.