WPIC 118.11 False Swearing—Elements
11A WAPRAC WPIC 118.11Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11A Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 118.11 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Part XIII. Miscellaneous Crimes
WPIC CHAPTER 118. Perjury or False Swearing
WPIC 118.11 False Swearing—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of false swearing, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about (date), the defendant made a false statement;
(2) The defendant knew the statement was false;
(3) That it was made under an oath required or authorized by law; and
(4) That this act occurred in the [State of Washington] [City of ] [County of ].
If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty.
On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
NOTE ON USE
With this instruction, use WPIC 118.12 (Perjury or False Swearing—Requirements of Proof), WPIC 118.15 (Oath—Definition), and WPIC 10.02 (Knowledge—Knowingly—Definition). If the case involves inconsistent statements, see WPIC 118.22 (Perjury—Inconsistent Statements). If retraction is involved, see WPIC 118.20 (Perjury and False Swearing—Retraction).
For a discussion of the phrase “this act” in element (4), see WPIC 4.20 (Introduction) and the Note on Use to WPIC 4.21 (Elements of the Crime—Form).
In element (4), choose from among the bracketed phrases depending on whether the case is in superior, municipal, or district court. See WPIC 4.20 (Introduction).
COMMENT
RCW 9A.72.040.
RCW 9A.72.070 sets forth certain irregularities that do not constitute a defense to false swearing. No pattern instruction is proposed. An instruction can usually be drafted in the language of the statute.
Comparing false swearing with perjury. Unlike perjury, false swearing is not limited to official proceedings; false swearing can be committed either in an official proceeding or elsewhere. In re Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wn.2d 756, 775–78, 10 P.3d 1034 (2000).
Also, false swearing differs from perjury in that false swearing does not require materiality. In re Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wn.2d at 775.
Oaths. By statutory definition, an oath is “required or authorized by law” when the oath is “specifically provided for” by a statute or regulation or when the oath is “administered by a person authorized by state or federal law to administer oaths.” RCW 9A.72.010. The latter part of this definition was added to the statute in 1995 (and was re-enacted in 2001). See Laws of 1995, Chapter 285, § 30 (effective July 1, 1995); Laws of 2001, Chapter 171, § 2 (effective May 7, 2001). The 1995 amendment abrogated the holding in State v. Hovrud, 60 Wn.App. 573, 805 P.2d 250 (1991) (concluding that the pre-1995 statutory definition of “required or authorized by law” did not encompass an oath that was “specifically provided for” in an insurance policy rather than in a statute).
[Current as of December 2019.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |