Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.72
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.050 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Where, in the course of one or more official proceedings, a person makes inconsistent material statements under oath, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the inconsistent statements in a single count alleging in the alternative that one or the other was false and known by the defendant to be false. In such case it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove which material statement was false but only that one or the other was false and known by the defendant to be false.
(2) The highest offense of which a person may be convicted in such an instance as set forth in subsection (1) of this section shall be determined by hypothetically assuming each statement to be false. If perjury of different degrees would be established by the making of the two statements, the person may only be convicted of the lesser degree. If perjury or false swearing would be established by the making of the two statements, the person may only be convicted of false swearing. For purposes of this section, no corroboration shall be required of either inconsistent statement.
[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.72.050.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2000–2019 · leading case: In re the Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 10 P.3d 1034 (Wash. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 10 P.3d 1034 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 4× “*774 Pearsall-Stipek cites RCW 9A.72.050 as evidence of legislative intent in this regard.”
In Re Dornay, 161 P.3d 333 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “one or the other of which was false and which respondent knew to be false, respondent committed the crime of perjury (RCW 9A.72.050(1)) and/or engaged in dishonesty, deceit and/or misrepresentation, in violation of RPC 8.”
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dornay, 160 Wash. 2d 671 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “one or the other of which was false and which respondent knew to be false, respondent committed the crime of peijury (RCW 9A.72.050(1)) and/or engaged in dishonesty, deceit and/or misrepresentation, in *676 violation of RPC 8.”
In Re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 10 P.3d 1034 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 4× “Pearsall-Stipek cites RCW 9A.72.050 as evidence of legislative intent in this regard.”
State Of Washington v. Christopher W. Olsen (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See RCW 9A.72.050. B. NOT ERROR TO SUSTAIN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE Olsen relies on the Ninth Circuit case United States v.”
State Of Washington v. Charles C. Johnson (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “See RCW 9A.72.050(1) (perjury consists of a person making inconsistent material statements under oath, knowing one to be false); Nessman v.”
State Of Washington v. Kevin Stewart Clardy, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “See RCW 9A.72.050 (perjury consists of person making inconsistent material statements under oath, knowing one to be false).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.050(1) — 4 cases
In Re Dornay, 161 P.3d 333 (Wash. 2007). “one or the other of which was false and which respondent knew to be false, respondent committed the crime of perjury (RCW 9A.72.050(1)) and/or engaged in dishonesty, deceit and/or misrepresentation, in violation of RPC 8.”
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dornay, 160 Wash. 2d 671 (Wash. 2007). “one or the other of which was false and which respondent knew to be false, respondent committed the crime of peijury (RCW 9A.72.050(1)) and/or engaged in dishonesty, deceit and/or misrepresentation, in *676 violation of RPC 8.”
In Re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 10 P.3d 1034 (Wash. 2000). “Pearsall-Stipek cites RCW 9A.72.050 as evidence of legislative intent in this regard.”
State Of Washington v. Charles C. Johnson (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “See RCW 9A.72.050(1) (perjury consists of a person making inconsistent material statements under oath, knowing one to be false); Nessman v.”
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.