(a) Every person under oath or affirmation who knowingly makes any false material declaration
or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record,
recording, or other material, knowing it contains any false material declaration,
shall be deemed guilty of perjury.
(b) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that on oath or
affirmation the defendant has knowingly made two (2) or more declarations which are
inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false need not specify
which declaration is false if:
(1) Each declaration was material to the point in question; and
(2) Each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations established
in § 12-12-17.
(c) In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the
indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof
that the defendant on oath or affirmation made irreconcilably contradictory declarations
material to the point in question. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information
made pursuant to this subsection that the defendant, at the time he or she made each
declaration, believed the declaration was true.
(d) Where in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration
is made, the person making the declaration admits the declaration to be false, that
admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is
made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not
become manifest that the falsity has been or will be exposed.
(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It
shall not be necessary that proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or
by documentary or other type of evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Elizabeth Morel v. Stephen Napolitano, Alias, 64 A.3d 1176 (R.I. 2013).
· cites it 4× “Further, Morel contends that the words “under the penalties of perjury” are not used in depositions, when a person is sworn in during court proceedings, or within an *1180 swers to interrogatories, nor are they required within an affidavit supporting a search warrant or by the…”
State v. Sivo, 809 A.2d 481 (R.I. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Sufficiency of the Indictment Three of Sivo’s issues on appeal focus on the interpretation of Rhode Island’s perjury statute, § 11-33-1. The defendant argues that the indictment is “constitutionally inadequate and could not be cured by a bill of particulars.”
State v. Charles Pona, 66 A.3d 454 (R.I. 2013).
· cites it 2× “2d at 412 ); see G.L.1956 § 11-33-1(a) (defining crime of perjury).”
State v. Romano, 456 A.2d 746 (R.I. 1983).
“1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 11-33-1, requires proof of a willful falsehood, contends that the questions concerning his lack of knowledge of his expectations in regard to the presence of the van and the Pontiac upon his return from the wake were phrased in such a manner that his…”
State v. Ouimette, 415 A.2d 1052 (R.I. 1980).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 11-33-1. This case evolves from an October 1975 incident at the Adult Correctional Institutions (A.”
Wiggins v. Rhode Island, 326 F. Supp. 2d 297 (D.R.I. 2004).
· cites it 2× “"Perjury,” as defined by R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-33-1 (a), requires a "knowingly .”
Larsen v. Gallogly, 361 F. Supp. 305 (D.R.I. 1973).
“G.L. 11-33-1, 11-33-2 (1956, 1969 Reenactment), or a statute might be enacted punishing the abuse of process.”
State v. Driscoll, 360 A.2d 857 (R.I. 1978).
“1956 (1969 Reenactment) §11-33-1, the- defendant, James Driscoll, wilfully made false representations under -oath to a grand jury which was investigating alleged irregularities involving the East Providence Zoning Board of Review.”
State v. Casala, 325 A.2d 540 (R.I. 1974).
· cites it 4× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §11-33-1. The defendant was tried to a jury in the Superior Court, found guilty, and sentenced to a term of three years.”
O'Sullivan v. State, 265 A.3d 1015 (Md. 2021).
“21, § 498 (a) (2021); 11 R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-33-1 (e) (2021). 10 See State v.”
Alvarado, 26 I. & N. Dec. 895 (BIA 2016).
“065 (West 1996); R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 11-33-1 (West 1996); Tenn.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-33-1(a): 2 cases
State v. Charles Pona, 66 A.3d 454 (R.I. 2013).
“2d at 412 ); see G.L.1956 § 11-33-1(a) (defining crime of perjury).”
Elizabeth Morel v. Stephen Napolitano, Alias, 64 A.3d 1176 (R.I. 2013).
“Further, Morel contends that the words “under the penalties of perjury” are not used in depositions, when a person is sworn in during court proceedings, or within an *1180 swers to interrogatories, nor are they required within an affidavit supporting a search warrant or by the…”
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.