Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 11.56.230 (2026)
Perjury by inconsistent statements
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 11.56.230. Perjury by inconsistent statements.
(a) A person commits the crime of perjury by inconsistent statements if
(1) in the course of one or more official proceedings the person makes two or more sworn statements which are irreconcilably inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false;
(2) the person does not believe one of the statements to be true at the time the statement is made; and
(3) each statement is made within the jurisdiction of this state and within the period of the statute of limitations for the crime charged.
(b) In a prosecution under this section, it is not necessary for the state to prove which statement was false but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true at the time the defendant made the statement. Proof of the irreconcilable inconsistency of the statements is prima facie evidence that one or the other of the statements was false.
(c) Perjury by inconsistent statements is a class C felony.
(a) A person commits the crime of perjury by inconsistent statements if
(1) in the course of one or more official proceedings the person makes two or more sworn statements which are irreconcilably inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false;
(2) the person does not believe one of the statements to be true at the time the statement is made; and
(3) each statement is made within the jurisdiction of this state and within the period of the statute of limitations for the crime charged.
(b) In a prosecution under this section, it is not necessary for the state to prove which statement was false but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true at the time the defendant made the statement. Proof of the irreconcilable inconsistency of the statements is prima facie evidence that one or the other of the statements was false.
(c) Perjury by inconsistent statements is a class C felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1984–2012 · leading case: DeMan v. State, 677 P.2d 903 (Alaska Ct. App. 1984).
DeMan v. State, 677 P.2d 903 (Alaska Ct. App. 1984). “DeMan suggests that he was placed in an untenable position because he could have been prosecuted for the offense of perjury by inconsistent statements, as set out in AS 11.56.230, if he had materially changed his testimony when called as a witness at the Hohman trial.”
State v. Corbett, 286 P.3d 772 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “See AS 11.56.230(a). Apparently because of this possibility that Dupri might incriminate himself, the State granted him immunity under AS 12.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.56.230(a) — 1 case
State v. Corbett, 286 P.3d 772 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “See AS 11.56.230(a). Apparently because of this possibility that Dupri might incriminate himself, the State granted him immunity under AS 12.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.