Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-102 (2026)

Case Notes

In General.

Perjury was an offense against the sovereign whose law was violated by the making of the false oath. State v. Kirkpatrick, 32 Ark. 117 (1877) (decision under prior law).

Evidence.

Prior inconsistent statement by the witness, given under oath to the deputy prosecuting attorney, was admissible for its substantive content, and the witness was subject to perjury penalties under this section. Slavens v. State, 1 Ark. App. 245, 614 S.W.2d 529 (1981).

Conviction for the crime of perjury must be based upon the testimony of at least one witness plus corroborating evidence; the corroborating evidence must go to material testimony adduced by the State and not the testimony on some immaterial matter. Fleming v. State, 14 Ark. App. 205, 686 S.W.2d 803 (1985).

Indictment or Information.

An indictment for perjury was not required to charge in haec verba that the false testimony was material if it stated facts from which its materiality resulted as a legal conclusion. State v. Nees, 47 Ark. 553, 2 S.W. 184 (1886) (decision under prior law).

For cases discussing the sufficiency of indictments or informations, see Blevins v. State, 85 Ark. 195, 107 S.W. 393 (1908); Smith v. State, 91 Ark. 200, 120 S.W. 985 (1909); Loudermilk v. State, 110 Ark. 549, 162 S.W. 569 (1913); Claborn v. State, 115 Ark. 387, 171 S.W. 862 (1914); Davis v. State, 131 Ark. 542, 199 S.W. 902 (1917); Cockrum v. State, 186 Ark. 14, 52 S.W.2d 642 (1932); Balentine v. State, 259 Ark. 590, 535 S.W.2d 221 (1976) (preceding decisions under prior law).

In indictments for perjury, the falsity of the testimony or statement for which the defendant was indicted could be shown by the indictment to be material either by direct averment or by allegations from which the materiality appeared. Cockrum v. State, 186 Ark. 14, 52 S.W.2d 642 (1932) (decision under prior law).

Instructions.

Failure to charge the jury that a conviction could not be had save on the testimony of two credible witnesses or on that of one witness corroborated by other evidence could not be complained of unless the appellant asked for an instruction on that point. Scott v. State, 77 Ark. 455, 92 S.W. 241 (1906) (decision under prior law).

Material Statements.

Perjury consisted in false and corrupt testimony relating not only to the main fact in issue, but also to material circumstances tending to prove the issue. Nelson v. State, 32 Ark. 192 (1877) (decision under prior law).

The materiality of the testimony alleged to be perjury had to be established by evidence and not left to presumption or inference. Nelson v. State, 32 Ark. 192 (1877); Marvin v. State, 53 Ark. 395, 14 S.W. 87 (1890) (preceding decisions under prior law).

Questions held to be material and false answers thereto would sustain an indictment for perjury. Lewis v. State, 78 Ark. 567, 94 S.W. 613 (1906) (decision under prior law).

False testimony not tending to prove a material issue in the case held not to constitute perjury. Reidhar v. State, 86 Ark. 525, 111 S.W. 1127 (1908) (decision under prior law).

In an investigation before a grand jury, any testimony was material whose necessary effect was to suspend, if not prevent, further investigation of a subject of inquiry. Smith v. State, 91 Ark. 200, 120 S.W. 985 (1909) (decision under prior law).

Where the undisputed evidence in a perjury case showed that the alleged false matters sworn to were material, the failure of the court to instruct the jury that the alleged false evidence had to be shown to be not only false but also material to the issue was not error. Where there was no dispute as to the facts sworn to, the question of materiality was for the court. Brooks v. State, 91 Ark. 505, 121 S.W. 740 (1909); Barre v. State, 99 Ark. 629, 139 S.W. 641 (1911) (preceding decisions under prior law).

In perjury cases it was not necessary that the false testimony would tend directly to prove the particular issue in the trial in which it was given, but if it was circumstantially material or tended to support or give credit to witnesses with respect to the main fact or to discredit a witness, it was sufficient to constitute the basis of the charge. Harris v. State, 119 Ark. 408, 177 S.W. 1144 (1915) (decision under prior law).

The materiality of the statements in an affidavit was not an essential element of perjury. Williams v. State, 259 Ark. 667, 535 S.W.2d 842 (1976) (decision under prior law).

If the false statement is material to the issue being tried, it does not matter whether the defendant is guilty or innocent of the collateral charge being tried or whether the State's evidence may fail in its proof; it is only necessary that the false statement be capable of influencing the outcome of the proceedings. Fleming v. State, 14 Ark. App. 205, 686 S.W.2d 803 (1985).

Testimony held to be material. Fleming v. State, 14 Ark. App. 205, 686 S.W.2d 803 (1985).

Official Proceeding.

Giving false testimony in a trial before a police court was perjury. Gardner v. State, 80 Ark. 264, 97 S.W. 48 (1906) (decision under prior law).

Perjury could not be assigned on an affidavit for appeal from justice of the peace. Jackson v. State, 90 Ark. 577, 119 S.W. 1129 (1909) (decision under prior law).

Statement by a witness given under oath to deputy prosecuting attorney was given at an official proceeding. Slavens v. State, 1 Ark. App. 245, 614 S.W.2d 529 (1981).

Defendant's first-degree murder conviction was overturned and the case was remanded for a new trial where a witness's prior inconsistent statement was improperly admitted under Ark. R. Evid. 801(d)(1); the statement, which was taken by a detective, was not taken during an “official proceeding” such that a false statement would be subject to the penalty of perjury, as the detective was not an official authorized to take the statement. Stephens v. State, 98 Ark. App. 196, 254 S.W.3d 1 (2007).

Substantial evidence supported defendant's conviction for perjury, under subsection (a) of this section, where given the contradictions between state trial testimony and the facts adduced at a federal plea hearing, the jury could have reasonably inferred that defendant knowingly gave false material testimony under oath in an official proceeding. Stewart v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 323, 374 S.W.3d 811 (2010).

Persons Chargeable.

One who induced his wife to make a false affidavit was not guilty of perjury. Thomas v. State, 149 Ark. 68, 231 S.W. 200 (1921) (decision under prior law).

Withdrawn Guilty Pleas.

Rule 410 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence is intended to protect an accused who has been permitted to withdraw a plea of guilty in accordance with Ark. R. Crim. P. 25 from having his guilty plea used against him as an admission against interest when he is tried on those same charges; it does not render the defendants' guilty pleas privileged from a prosecution for perjury where the defendants later filed motions to withdraw their guilty pleas and testified that they had lied at the hearing on their guilty pleas. Brown v. State, 288 Ark. 517, 707 S.W.2d 313 (1986).

Cited: In re Badami, 309 Ark. 511, 831 S.W.2d 905 (1992).