Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-701 (2026)
Definitions for perjury offenses
✓ current as of May 2026
As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires:
- (1) "Material" means the statement, irrespective of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, could have affected the course or outcome of the official proceeding;
- (2) "Oath" means a solemn and formal undertaking to tell the truth and includes an equivalent affirmation permitted by law as a substitute for an oath administered by a person authorized by law to take statements under oath;
- (3) "Official proceeding" means any type of administrative, executive, judicial, or legislative proceeding that is conducted before a public servant authorized by law to take statements under oath in that proceeding; and
- (4) "Statement" means any representation of fact.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1995–2015 · leading case: State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-701(1) (emphasis added).”
State v. Forbes, 918 S.W.2d 431 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-701(1). An “official proceeding” means “any type of administrative, executive, judicial or legislative proceeding that is conducted before a public servant authorized by law to take statements under oath in that proceeding.”
State v. Levandowski, 955 S.W.2d 603 (Tenn. 1997). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-701 et seq. (1991).”
State of Tennessee v. Melvin E. Beard (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-701 (1). The defendant argues that the evidence presented to the jury was insufficient to allow them to determine whether the defendant’s statement “could have affected the outcome of the” Community Corrections violation hearing because the jury was not…”
State v. Cutshaw (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-701 (1) (emp hasis added).”
State of Tennessee v. Reese L. Smith (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “§ 39-16-701(1). “Oath” is defined as “a solemn and formal undertaking to tell the truth and includes an equivalent affirmation permitted by law as a substitute for an oath administered by a person authorized by law to take statements under oath.”
State of Tennessee v. Romelus Caraway (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-701(1) (2003) defines the test for materiality as whether “the statement, irrespective of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, could have affected the course or outcome of the official proceeding.”
State of Tennessee v. James D. Black (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-701 provides that: (1) “Material” means the statement, irrespective of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, could have affected the course or outcome of the official proceeding; (2) “Oath” means a solemn and formal undertaking to…”
State of Tennessee v. Donald Keel (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-701(1) (2003) defines the test for materiality as whether “the statement, irrespective of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, could have affected the course or outcome of the official proceeding.”
State of Tennessee v. Alvin Carroll (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-701 (1). If we were to conclude that the phrase, “official proceeding,” related to the defendant’s initial drug charges, we would fail to see how the appointment of a public defender versus the retention of a private attorney would have affected the…”
State of Tennessee v. Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “§ 39-16-701(1); see State v. Donald Keel, No.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-701(1) — 7 cases
State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-701(1) (emphasis added).”
State v. Forbes, 918 S.W.2d 431 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-701(1). An “official proceeding” means “any type of administrative, executive, judicial or legislative proceeding that is conducted before a public servant authorized by law to take statements under oath in that proceeding.”
State of Tennessee v. Melvin E. Beard (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-701 (1). The defendant argues that the evidence presented to the jury was insufficient to allow them to determine whether the defendant’s statement “could have affected the outcome of the” Community Corrections violation hearing because the jury was not…”
State of Tennessee v. Romelus Caraway (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-701(1) (2003) defines the test for materiality as whether “the statement, irrespective of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, could have affected the course or outcome of the official proceeding.”
State of Tennessee v. Donald Keel (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-701(1) (2003) defines the test for materiality as whether “the statement, irrespective of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, could have affected the course or outcome of the official proceeding.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-701(2) — 2 cases
State v. Forbes, 918 S.W.2d 431 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-701(1). An “official proceeding” means “any type of administrative, executive, judicial or legislative proceeding that is conducted before a public servant authorized by law to take statements under oath in that proceeding.”
State of Tennessee v. Reese L. Smith (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “§ 39-16-701(1). “Oath” is defined as “a solemn and formal undertaking to tell the truth and includes an equivalent affirmation permitted by law as a substitute for an oath administered by a person authorized by law to take statements under oath.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-701(3) — 3 cases
State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-701(1) (emphasis added).”
State of Tennessee v. Reese L. Smith (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “§ 39-16-701(1). “Oath” is defined as “a solemn and formal undertaking to tell the truth and includes an equivalent affirmation permitted by law as a substitute for an oath administered by a person authorized by law to take statements under oath.”
State of Tennessee v. Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “§ 39-16-701(1); see State v. Donald Keel, No.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-701(4) — 2 cases
State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-701(1) (emphasis added).”
State v. Cutshaw (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-701 (1) (emp hasis added).”
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.