Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.095 (2026)
Defenses to perjury and false swearing limited
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
162.095 Defenses to perjury and false swearing limited. It is no defense to a prosecution for perjury or false swearing that:
(1) The statement was inadmissible under the rules of evidence; or
(2) The oath or affirmation was taken or administered in an irregular manner; or
(3) The defendant mistakenly believed the false statement to be immaterial. [1971 c.743 §186]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1978–2006 · leading case: State v. Carr, 877 P.2d 1192 (Or. 1994).
State v. Carr, 877 P.2d 1192 (Or. 1994). “Another clue to the legislature's intent with respect to the degree of formality required for a violation of the perjury statute is provided by ORS 162.095(2), which provides: "It is no defense to a prosecution for perjury or false swearing that: * * * The oath or affirmation…”
Blackburn v. Motor Vehs. Div., Dept., 576 P.2d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “” We note ORS 162.095 lends support to this holding.”
State v. Flajole, 129 P.3d 770 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “035 (1971) (setting out defenses and nondefenses in a prosecution for bribery); ORS 162.095 (1971) and ORS 162.105 (1971) (same in prosecution for peijury); ORS 162.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.095(2): 1 case
State v. Carr, 877 P.2d 1192 (Or. 1994). “Another clue to the legislature's intent with respect to the degree of formality required for a violation of the perjury statute is provided by ORS 162.095(2), which provides: "It is no defense to a prosecution for perjury or false swearing that: * * * The oath or affirmation…”
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.