Home Table of Contents

WPIC 118.12 Perjury or False Swearing—Requirements of Proof

11A WAPRAC WPIC 118.12Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal

11A Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 118.12 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part XIII. Miscellaneous Crimes
WPIC CHAPTER 118. Perjury or False Swearing
WPIC 118.12 Perjury or False Swearing—Requirements of Proof
To convict the defendant of the crime of [perjury in the [first] [second] degree] [false swearing] there must be either positive testimony of at least two credible witnesses that directly contradicts the defendant's statement made under oath or there must be one such direct witness along with independent direct or circumstantial evidence of supporting circumstances that clearly overcomes the oath of the defendant and the legal presumption of defendant's innocence.
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction in every perjury or false swearing case. Use bracketed material as applicable. Do not use WPIC 118.22 (Perjury—Inconsistent Statements) with this instruction. See Comment below.
COMMENT
The requirements of proof in a perjury case are the strictest known to the law, outside of treason charges. These requirements were enunciated in State v. Olson, 92 Wn.2d 134, 594 P.2d 1337 (1979). In Olson, the court stated that in perjury cases the State must present:
  • (1) the testimony of at least one credible witness which is positive and directly contradictory of the defendant's oath; and
  • (2) another such direct witness or independent evidence of corroborating circumstances of such a character as clearly to turn the scale and overcome the oath of the defendant and the legal presumption of his innocence.
State v. Olson, 92 Wn.2d at 136.
If the State relies on the testimony of one direct witness and independent corroborating evidence to support a perjury conviction, “such corroborating evidence must be inconsistent with the defendant's innocence.” State v. Arquette, 178 Wn.App. 273, 286, 314 P.3d 426 (2013).
The giving of an instruction that sets forth these requirements is recommended in Nessman v. Sumpter, 27 Wn.App. 18, 23 n.5, 615 P.2d 522 (1980).
WPIC 118.12 slightly rewords the Olson requirements, simplifying the language and incorporating additional holdings from the case law. The “direct testimony” required by the rule must come from a person “in a position to know by his or her own experience that the facts sworn to by the defendant are false.” Nessman v. Sumpter, 27 Wn.App. at 24. Contradictory statements by the defendant, sworn or unsworn, are not direct evidence of the falsity of the testimony that the law requires. State v. Wallis, 50 Wn.2d 350, 354–55, 311 P.2d 659 (1957); Nessman v. Sumpter, 27 Wn.App. at 24. However, admissions and contradictory statements of the defendant may be used to corroborate the direct testimony required to support a perjury conviction. State v. Buchanan, 79 Wn.2d 740, 745, 489 P.2d 744 (1971). Moreover, RCW 9A.72.050(1) provides that when, in the course of one or more official proceedings, a person makes inconsistent material statements under oath, it is not necessary to prove which material statement was false but only that one or the other was false and known by the defendant to be false. No corroboration is required of either inconsistent statement. See WPIC 118.22 (Perjury—Inconsistent Statements).
The requirement for heightened proof of perjury is “satisfied when the evidence of the knowingly false statement is recorded prior to the hearing at which the perjury is subsequently committed. In such circumstances, the recorded evidence can provide a basis both for the witness's testimony and corroborate that testimony.” State v. Singh, 167 Wn.App. 971, 979, 275 P.3d 1156 (2012).
[Current as of December 2019.]
End of Document