Opinion ID: 2064646
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is Falsity Alleged?

Text: Appellant contends, first, that the indictment fails to allege falsity and therefore violates the rule that an indictment must contain the essential elements of the crime charged. The elements of perjury are: (1) an oath, (2) before a competent person or tribunal; (3) a statement of false, (4) material facts; and (5) knowledge of the falsity. D.C.Code 1973, § 22-2501. See United States v. Debrow, supra, 346 U.S. at 376, 74 S.Ct. 113; United States v. Young, 113 F.Supp. 20, 21 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 94 U.S. App.D.C. 54, 212 F.2d 236 (1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 1015, 74 S.Ct. 870, 98 L.Ed. 1137 (1954). Because actual falsity is necessary to conviction, see Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), appellant is correct in asserting that a perjury indictment must allege it. He is wrong, however, in claiming that the present indictment does not. To be convicted of perjury under the D.C.Code, a defendant must have taken an oath to be truthful and violated that oath. The indictment in this case, in language similar to the statute, charged that appellant,  having taken an oath . . . that he would testify truly, did unlawfully, wilfully, knowingly and contrary to such oath, state material matters which he did not believe to be true . . . . (emphasis added). This language clearly charged appellant with making false statements; i. e., he took an oath to testify truthfully and did not do so. Appellant's contention that the indictment lacked an allegation of falsity is accordingly meritless.