Court Opinion

ID: 9536877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:08:42.529105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:26.742103
License: Public Domain

*203SLOAN, J.,
dissenting.
In State v. Bonner, 1965, 241 Or 404, 407, 408, 406 P2d 160, 161, 162, the following appears:
“The defendant also claims the court erred in the giving of the following instruction:
‘False and contradictory statements made by a defendant, if any, are circumstances which may be taken into consideration by you in determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant.’
“In addition to the above instruction, the court also gave the following general statutory instruction relative to the same matter:
‘A witness shown to be false in one part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others. Therefore, if you find that any witness has wilfully sworn falsely in any part of his or her testimony, you have a right to distrust the other portions thereof.’
“The challenged instruction was erroneous and violated ORB 17.250(3) in two respects. It stated that false statements of the defendant could be taken into consideration in determining whether he was guilty or innocent instead of whether he was telling the truth in the rest of his testimony, as the statute provides. Also, it included contradictory statements instead of limiting itself, as required by statute, to false statements. The language of the statute has been construed as not meaning a mistaken witness or one who is confused or hazy in recollection but rather one who intentionally disregards the truth. Simpson v. Miller, 57 Or 61, 110 P 485; Ireland v. Mitchell, 226 Or 286, 359 P2d 894.
The Bonner decision cannot be reconciled with the majority opinion. The present decision would require the .giving of the first quoted instruction in every case where any part of a defendant’s testimony is refuted. The majority now would permit any apparent falsity in a' defendant’s testimony to be treated as evidence of *204guilt. This is the inescapable result of the majority decision. I do not believe that Wigmore, or the other authorities cited by the majority, intended such a result.
The statutory penalty for false testimony, ORS 17.250(3)①, should be the limit of its convictable weight and the instruction usually given, as quoted above, pursuant to the statute, is all that should be stated in this respect.

 “That a witness false in one part of his testimony is to be distrusted in others.”