Tex. Codes » Penal Code · TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION · CHAPTER 37. PERJURY AND OTHER FALSIFICATION
Texas Codes

Tex. Penal Code § 37.04 (2026)

Materiality

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 37.04. MATERIALITY. (a) A statement is material, regardless of the admissibility of the statement under the rules of evidence, if it could have affected the course or outcome of the official proceeding.

(b) It is no defense to prosecution under Section 37.03 (Aggravated Perjury) that the declarant mistakenly believed the statement to be immaterial.

(c) Whether a statement is material in a given factual situation is a question of law.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: State v. Rosenbaum, 910 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Rosenbaum, 910 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “The court of appeals further concluded that, since materiality is a question of law, Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 37.04, and judicial power embraces "(1) the power to hear facts, (2) the power to decide issues of fact made by the pleadings, (3) the power to decide questions of law…”
Vaughn v. Texas Emp. Comm'n, 792 S.W.2d 139 (Tex. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “See Searcy & Patterson, Practice Commentary, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.04 (Vernon 1989).”
Bonilla v. State, 933 S.W.2d 538 (Tex. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “[2] Based on this record, we exercise our discretion to decline to review this new ground regarding materiality because it was an uncontested issue at trial and on appeal. We overrule appellant's motion for rehearing.”
Warrantech Corp. v. Comput. Adapters Servs., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. App. 2004). “See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.04 (a) (Vernon 2003) (providing that statement is sufficiently "material” to sustain aggravated perjury conviction if it could have affected the course or outcome of an official proceeding, regardless of statement's admissibility under rules of…”
In Re Seigel, 198 S.W.3d 21 (Tex. App. 2006). “TexPenal Code Ann. § 37.03. A statement is material, regardless of the admissibility of the statement under the rules of evidence, if it could have affected the course or outcome of the official proceeding.”
Terrell v. State, 801 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “” Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 37.04(a) (Vernon 1989).”
Kmiec v. State, 91 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. App. 2002). “Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.04 (a) (Vernon 1994).”
Ex Parte Busby, 921 S.W.2d 389 (Tex. App. 1996). “” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.04 (West 1994).”
Springer v. State, 721 S.W.2d 510 (Tex. App. 1987). “1980); Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 37.04 (Vernon 1974).”
State v. Rosenbaum, 858 S.W.2d 22 (Tex. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 37.04 (Vernon 1989); Mitchell v.”
Ly v. State, 931 S.W.2d 22 (Tex. App. 1996). “Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 37.04(a) (Vernon Supp.”
Ex Parte Tamez, 4 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. App. 1999). “04(c) is unconstitutional because determination of materiality by the court is unconstitutional under Gau-din.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Tex. Penal Code § 37.04(a) — 5 cases
State v. Rosenbaum, 910 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). “The court of appeals further concluded that, since materiality is a question of law, Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 37.04, and judicial power embraces "(1) the power to hear facts, (2) the power to decide issues of fact made by the pleadings, (3) the power to decide questions of law…”
Terrell v. State, 801 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. App. 1991). “” Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 37.04(a) (Vernon 1989).”
Vaughn v. Texas Emp. Comm'n, 792 S.W.2d 139 (Tex. App. 1990). “See Searcy & Patterson, Practice Commentary, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.04 (Vernon 1989).”
Ly v. State, 931 S.W.2d 22 (Tex. App. 1996). “Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 37.04(a) (Vernon Supp.”
Markum Woodrow Peavey v. State of Texas (Tex. App. 2012).
— Tex. Penal Code § 37.04(c) — 5 cases
Bonilla v. State, 933 S.W.2d 538 (Tex. App. 1996). “[2] Based on this record, we exercise our discretion to decline to review this new ground regarding materiality because it was an uncontested issue at trial and on appeal. We overrule appellant's motion for rehearing.”
Coleman v. State, 279 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. App. 2007).
Trey Wayne Fricks v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2022).
Dorothy Fricks v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2022).
Thomas Coleman v. State (Tex. App. 2006).
— Tex. Penal Code § 37.04(e) — 1 case
Bonilla v. State, 933 S.W.2d 538 (Tex. App. 1996). “[2] Based on this record, we exercise our discretion to decline to review this new ground regarding materiality because it was an uncontested issue at trial and on appeal. We overrule appellant's motion for rehearing.”
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.