(A) No person, in any official proceeding, shall knowingly make a false statement under oath or affirmation, or knowingly swear or affirm the truth of a false statement previously made, when either statement is material.
(B) A falsification is material, regardless of its admissibility in evidence, if it can affect the course or outcome of the proceeding. It is no defense to a charge under this section that the offender mistakenly believed a falsification to be immaterial.
(C) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the oath or affirmation was administered or taken in an irregular manner.
(D) Where contradictory statements relating to the same material fact are made by the offender under oath or affirmation and within the period of the statute of limitations for perjury, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove which statement was false, but only that one or the other was false.
(E) No person shall be convicted of a violation of this section where proof of falsity rests solely upon contradiction by testimony of one person other than the defendant.
(F) Whoever violates this section is guilty of perjury, a felony of the third degree.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 87
cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: State v. Hale, 2019-Ohio-3276.
State v. Hale, 2019-Ohio-3276. · cites it 5דHale was also indicted on one count of perjury in violation of R.C. 2921.11(A) based on his alleged “false testimony” at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.”
Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., 915 N.E.2d 696 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2009). · cites it 2ד; perjury, in violation of R.C. 2921.11; falsifica *48 tion, in violation of R.”
Hardesty v. Citifinancial, Inc. (In Re Roberts), 402 B.R. 808 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2009). · cites it 5דRoberts, the individuals who, under penalty of perjury in violation of Section 2921.11 of the Ohio Revised Code, 1 executed the foregoing instrument and that they did examine and read the same and did sign the foregoing instrument, and the same is their free act and deed.”
In re G.T., 2022-Ohio-1406. · cites it 5ד02 and implicates R.C. 2921.11(A) because Lakes made this statement under oath.”
State v. Klofta, 2020-Ohio-5032. · cites it 4ד” {¶ 35} Finally, we disagree with Klofta’s argument that if excessive discipline is cognizable under R.C. 2921.11(A), then an indictment under R.”
Hayes v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 742 N.E.2d 238 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2000). · cites it 4דSimilarly, the common pleas court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the board had more than sufficient evidence to support the finding that appellant violated R.C. 4731.22(B)(10) and (14), which, respectively, permit the board to discipline a licensee for committing…”
State v. Dendinger, 2023-Ohio-4255. · cites it 2ד12(A)(2), a felony of the third degree, and one count of perjury in violation of R.C. 2921.11(A), a felony of the third degree.”
State v. Randle, 2018-Ohio-207, 104 N.E.3d 202. “11 defines the offense of perjury and reads, in its relevant part, as follows: (A) No person, in any official proceeding, shall knowingly make a false statement under oath or affirmation, or knowingly swear or affirm the truth of a false statement previously made, when either…”
State v. Adams, 791 N.E.2d 1045 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2003). · cites it 7דPerjury is described in R.C. 2921.11: {¶ 24} “(A) No person, in any official proceeding, shall knowingly make a false statement under oath or affirmation, or knowingly swear or affirm the truth of a false statement previously made, when either statement is material.”
State v. Bell, 647 N.E.2d 193 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1994). · cites it 4דBell, was convicted on two counts of perjury in violation of R.C. 2921.11, a felony of the third degree.”
Merkel v. Scovill, Inc., 573 F. Supp. 1055 (S.D. Ohio 1983). · cites it 4דTherefore, a plaintiff who asserts such a cause of action must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant knew that it was requesting the plaintiff to commit perjury or falsification in violation of O.R.C. § 2921.11 or § 2921.-13. Perjury and falsification are…”
W. & S. Life Ins. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 54 F. Supp. 3d 888 (S.D. Ohio 2014). · cites it 3ד” O.R.C. § 2921.11. The alleged forgery and perjury involved the use of “robo-signed” foreclosure affidavits attached to mortgage assignments in which the “robo-signer” falsely swore to personal knowledge of .”
State v. Hale, 2019-Ohio-3276. “Hale was also indicted on one count of perjury in violation of R.C. 2921.11(A) based on his alleged “false testimony” at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.”
In re G.T., 2022-Ohio-1406. “02 and implicates R.C. 2921.11(A) because Lakes made this statement under oath.”
State v. Dendinger, 2023-Ohio-4255. “12(A)(2), a felony of the third degree, and one count of perjury in violation of R.C. 2921.11(A), a felony of the third degree.”
State v. Klofta, 2020-Ohio-5032. “” {¶ 35} Finally, we disagree with Klofta’s argument that if excessive discipline is cognizable under R.C. 2921.11(A), then an indictment under R.”
In re G.T., 2022-Ohio-1406. “02 and implicates R.C. 2921.11(A) because Lakes made this statement under oath.”
State v. Hale, 2019-Ohio-3276. “Hale was also indicted on one count of perjury in violation of R.C. 2921.11(A) based on his alleged “false testimony” at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.”
State v. Bell, 647 N.E.2d 193 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1994). “Bell, was convicted on two counts of perjury in violation of R.C. 2921.11, a felony of the third degree.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.11(B)(3): 1 case
State v. Klofta, 2020-Ohio-5032. “” {¶ 35} Finally, we disagree with Klofta’s argument that if excessive discipline is cognizable under R.C. 2921.11(A), then an indictment under R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.11(D): 2 cases
State v. Adams, 791 N.E.2d 1045 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2003). “Perjury is described in R.C. 2921.11: {¶ 24} “(A) No person, in any official proceeding, shall knowingly make a false statement under oath or affirmation, or knowingly swear or affirm the truth of a false statement previously made, when either statement is material.”
State v. Pirman, 640 N.E.2d 575 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1994).
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.