Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-435 (2026)

Giving conflicting testimony on separate occasions as to same matter; indictment; sufficiency of evidence

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It shall likewise constitute perjury for any person, with the intent to testify falsely, to knowingly give testimony under oath as to any material matter or thing and subsequently to give conflicting testimony under oath as to the same matter or thing. In any indictment for such perjury, it shall be sufficient to allege the offense by stating that the person charged therewith did, knowingly and with the intent to testify falsely, on one occasion give testimony upon a certain matter and, on a subsequent occasion, give different testimony upon the same matter. Upon the trial on such indictment, it shall be sufficient to prove that the defendant, knowingly and with the intent to testify falsely, gave such differing testimony and that the differing testimony was given on two separate occasions.

Code 1950, § 18.1-276; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1987–2019 · leading case: Scott v. Commonwealth, 416 S.E.2d 47 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Scott v. Commonwealth, 416 S.E.2d 47 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 26× “In this appeal we are called upon to interpret the meaning of the phrase, “give testimony,” as used in Code § 18.2-435. 1 The appellant asserts that the meaning of “testimony” within the .”

Stephen Matthew Sutphin v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 734 S.E.2d 725 (Va. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 28× “Stephen Matthew Sutphin (“Sutphin”) was convicted of perjury by giving conflicting testimony on separate occasions as to the same matter under Code § 18.2-435 following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of the County of Amelia (“trial court”).”

Williams v. Commonwealth, 381 S.E.2d 361 (Va. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 12× “2-435, which provides: It shall likewise constitute perjury for any person, with the intent to testify falsely, to knowingly give testimony under oath as to any material matter or thing and subsequently to give conflicting testimony under oath as to the same matter or thing. In…”

Robinson v. Salvation Army, 791 S.E.2d 577 (Va. 2016). · cites it 2× “2-365, and lewd and lascivious cohabitation, under Code § 18.2-435, not Code § 18.2-344. VanBuren references Mitchem (decided five years prior to Martin ) in passing as an example of a circumstance where a valid criminal law could provide a basis for a cause of action based on…”

Angelone v. Dabney, 560 S.E.2d 253 (Va. 2002). · cites it 6× “He asserts that Wells’ testimony changed significantly from one trial to the next, and that this variance in his testimony was sufficient to establish perjury under Code § 18.2-435. Thus, Dabney contends that he proved that the prosecution made knowing use of perjured testimony…”

Hogan v. State, 516 So. 2d 474 (Miss. 1987). “§ 76-8-502 (2) (1953); Code of Virginia § 18.2-435 (1950). [4] 7 Wigmore (Chadbourn Rev.”

Marcus Antwann Atkins v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 14× “At Atkins’s perjury trial on February 28, 2018, the Commonwealth introduced excerpts of certified transcripts containing Atkins’s testimony from those two trials as evidence in its case-in-chief.”

Victor Hairston, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “appeals his conviction of perjury, Code § 18.2-435. 1 He maintains the evidence was insufficient because it failed to prove he had the intent to testify falsely.”

Calvin Eugene Clark, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “2-434 was “irrelevant” to his conviction for violating Code § 18.2-435). no evidence of an agreement to support the conspiracy charge.”

Shifflett v. Commonwealth (ORDER) (Va. 2015). · cites it 4× “" Code § 18.2-435 further provides that "[i]t shall likewise constitute perjury for any person, with the intent to testify falsely," to give conflicting statements under oath in separate proceedings.”

George Henson, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “(appellant) appeals from his jury trial conviction for perjury in violation of Code § 18.2-435. On appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because it did not prove that he gave conflicting testimony "knowingly and with the intent to…”

Ray Winkler v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “He was convicted of perjury upon proof of elements set forth in a different statute, specifically Code § 18.2-435. We found the citation to § 18.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

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.