Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 946 — CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT AND ITS ADMINISTRATION
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 946.31 (2026)

Perjury

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
946.31946.31 Perjury.
946.31(1)(1) Whoever under oath or affirmation orally makes a false material statement which the person does not believe to be true, in any matter, cause, action or proceeding, before any of the following, whether legally constituted or exercising powers as if legally constituted, is guilty of a Class H felony:
946.31(1)(a)(a) A court;
946.31(1)(b)(b) A magistrate;
946.31(1)(c)(c) A judge, referee or court commissioner;
946.31(1)(d)(d) An administrative agency or arbitrator authorized by statute to determine issues of fact;
946.31(1)(e)(e) A notary public while taking testimony for use in an action or proceeding pending in court;
946.31(1)(f)(f) An officer authorized to conduct inquests of the dead;
946.31(1)(g)(g) A grand jury;
946.31(1)(h)(h) A legislative body or committee.
946.31(2)(2) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the perjured testimony was corrected or retracted.
946.31 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 110; 2001 a. 109.
946.31 AnnotationAn arbitrator selected from a list provided by the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission is authorized by s. 111.10 to arbitrate as provided in ch. 298 [now ch. 788] and so is “authorized by statute” within the meaning of sub. (1) (d). Layton School of Art & Design v. WERC, 82 Wis. 2d 324, 262 N.W.2d 218 (1978).
946.31 AnnotationPerjury consists of a false statement that the defendant knew was false, was made under oath in a proceeding before a judge, and was material to the proceeding. Materiality is determined by whether the trial court could have relied on the testimony in making a decision, not on whether it actually did. State v. Munz, 198 Wis. 2d 379, 541 N.W.2d 821 (Ct. App. 1995), 95-0635.
946.31 AnnotationA defendant may be charged with multiple counts of perjury based on testimony given in the same proceeding when each charge requires proof of an additional fact that the others do not. State v. Warren, 229 Wis. 2d 172, 599 N.W.2d 431 (Ct. App. 1999), 99-0129.
946.31 AnnotationIssue preclusion does not bar the prosecution for perjury of a defendant who was tried and acquitted on a single issue when newly discovered evidence suggests that the defendant falsely testified on the issue. The state must show that: 1) the evidence came to the state’s attention after trial; 2) the state was not negligent in failing to discover the evidence; 3) the evidence is material to the issue; and 4) the evidence is not merely cumulative. State v. Canon, 2001 WI 11, 241 Wis. 2d 164, 622 N.W.2d 270, 98-3519.
946.31 AnnotationPerjury Prosecutions After Acquittals: The Evils of False Testimony Balanced Against the Sanctity of Determinations of Innocence. Shellenberger. 71 MLR 703 (1988).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: State v. Canon, 2001 WI 11 (Wis. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Canon, 2001 WI 11 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 16× “The question presented in this case is whether the doctrine of issue preclusion bars the State from prosecuting a defendant under Wis. Stat. § 946.31 (1)(a) (1997-98) [1] for allegedly committing perjury at a criminal trial where the defendant was tried and acquitted on a single…”
State v. Cardenas-Hernandez, 579 N.W.2d 678 (Wis. 1998). · cites it 8× “The court of appeals affirmed the defendant's conviction on two counts of peijury in violation of Wis. Stat. § 946.31 , rejecting the defendant's argument that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by refusing to admit into evidence statements made by the…”
State v. Tye, 2001 WI 124 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 4× “[25] Wis. Stat. § 946.31 . [26] Wis. Stat. § 946.”
State v. Warren, 599 N.W.2d 431 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 19× “3 Warren's offenses are indeed identical in law because they constitute multiple violations of the same statute, § 946.31 (l)(c), STATS. See State v. Carol M.”
State v. Noble, 2002 WI 64 (Wis. 2002). · cites it 6× “[3] Based on this alleged false testimony, Noble was charged with one count of perjury contrary to Wis. Stat. § 946.31 (1)(a) (1999-2000). [4] *215 ¶ 7.”
Est. of Hopgood v. Boyd, 2013 WI 1 (Wis. 2013). · cites it 8× “First, they argue *81 that Wis. Stat. § 946.31 (1), the perjury statute, does not punish an individual for falsely swearing to a notice of claim before a notary public.”
State v. Rivest, 316 N.W.2d 395 (Wis. 1982). · cites it 4× “Sec. 946.31, Stats. 1979-80; [5] State v.”
Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 335 N.W.2d 834 (Wis. 1983). · cites it 2× “Brockmeyer next contends that he was asked to commit perjury in violation of sec. 946.31(1), Stats. [20] The record is devoid of any evidence demonstrating that Dun & Bradstreet asked Brockmeyer to lie.”
Layton Sch. of Art & Design v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 262 N.W.2d 218 (Wis. 1978). · cites it 3× “Sec. 946.31, Stats., describes the crime of perjury as follows: “(1) Whoever under oath or affirmation orally makes a false material statement which he does not believe to be true, in any matter, cause, action or proceeding, before any of the following, whether de jure or de…”
State v. Reed, 2005 WI 53 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 2× “13 (false alarms to firefighters); § 946.31 (perjury); § 946.32 (false swearing).”
State v. Jeffrey L. Moeser, 2022 WI 76 (Wis. 2022). · cites it 4× “That now exists under Wis. Stat. § 946.31 (1). 12 Wisconsin Stat.”
State v. Cardenas-Hernandez, 571 N.W.2d 406 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “, 1 and two counts of perjury in violation of § 946.31, Stats., 2 all counts enhanced for habitual criminality *78 under § 939.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 946.31(1) — 10 cases
Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 335 N.W.2d 834 (Wis. 1983). “Brockmeyer next contends that he was asked to commit perjury in violation of sec. 946.31(1), Stats. [20] The record is devoid of any evidence demonstrating that Dun & Bradstreet asked Brockmeyer to lie.”
State v. Rivest, 316 N.W.2d 395 (Wis. 1982). “Sec. 946.31, Stats. 1979-80; [5] State v.”
Est. of Hopgood v. Boyd, 2013 WI 1 (Wis. 2013). “First, they argue *81 that Wis. Stat. § 946.31 (1), the perjury statute, does not punish an individual for falsely swearing to a notice of claim before a notary public.”
State v. Manthey, 487 N.W.2d 44 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 325 N.W.2d 70 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982).
— Wis. Stat. § 946.31(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Noble, 2002 WI 64 (Wis. 2002). “[3] Based on this alleged false testimony, Noble was charged with one count of perjury contrary to Wis. Stat. § 946.31 (1)(a) (1999-2000). [4] *215 ¶ 7.”
— Wis. Stat. § 946.31(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. Warren, 599 N.W.2d 431 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “3 Warren's offenses are indeed identical in law because they constitute multiple violations of the same statute, § 946.31 (l)(c), STATS. See State v. Carol M.”
— Wis. Stat. § 946.31(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Munz, 541 N.W.2d 821 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
— Wis. Stat. § 946.31(l)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Warren, 599 N.W.2d 431 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “3 Warren's offenses are indeed identical in law because they constitute multiple violations of the same statute, § 946.31 (l)(c), STATS. See State v. Carol M.”
State v. Petrone, 479 N.W.2d 212 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).
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.