State v. Paige, 40 A.3d 279

Paige convicted after jury trial of nine counts including perjury under § 53a-156 (count two) for statements made in civil proceedings involving Byxbee estate fraud.
Appellate Court found insufficient evidence on two larceny counts and held defendant waived challenge to materiality instruction by conduct beyond a written objection.
Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification limited to whether the Appellate Court correctly held Paige waived the materiality challenge.
Trial court instructed materiality as a matter of law for count two; later agreed with the Greenberg rule that materiality is decided by the court, not the jury.
Appellate Court affirmed on all counts except two larceny counts; defendant challenged preservation of the materiality issue.
This Court overrules Greenberg to hold that materiality is a jury issue under Gaudin and remands for a new trial on count two only; other counts affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether materiality of perjury is a jury question	State contends materiality is a jury question.	Paige argued materiality is a matter of law for the court.	Materiality must be decided by the jury.
Whether Paige waived the materiality challenge	State asserts Paige acquiesced to the court’s proposed instruction.	Paige did not unequivocally abandon her request to charge on materiality.	Waiver was improperly determined; reversal on count two.
Effect of Greenberg after Gaudin	State relied on Greenberg as controlling law.	Paige argued Greenberg should control, limiting jury discretion.	Greenberg overruled; Gaudin governs; materiality is a jury issue.

United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (U.S. Supreme Court 1995) (materiality in perjury is a mixed question of law and fact for the jury)
State v. Greenberg, 92 Conn. 657 (Conn. 1918) (trial court must decide materiality as a matter of law; error harmless when jury finds materiality)
State v. Fasano, 119 Conn. 455 (Conn. 1935) (case cited regarding materiality as a legal issue)