of people served
rated by clients
available to help
The legal system relies fundamentally on the principle that information provided under oath or affirmation is truthful. Perjury, the act of intentionally making a false statement under oath about a matter crucial to a legal proceeding or official document, strikes at the heart of this principle. Minnesota Statute § 609.48 defines and prohibits perjury, recognizing it as a serious offense that undermines the administration of justice and the integrity of sworn statements required by law. This crime occurs when an individual, bound by oath or affirmation to tell the truth, knowingly makes a false statement about a material fact.
The scope of perjury under Minnesota law extends beyond just courtroom testimony. It encompasses false statements made in various legal contexts where sworn truthfulness is required, including hearings, depositions, affidavits, sworn applications, and other official writings made under oath or affirmation, such as declarations made under penalty of perjury according to specific statutes. The law emphasizes that the false statement must be “material,” meaning it must be relevant and capable of influencing the proceeding or matter at hand. Committing perjury is a felony offense in Minnesota, carrying significant potential penalties that reflect the gravity of lying under oath.
The crime of perjury is specifically defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 609, which covers a wide range of criminal offenses. The relevant section detailing the acts constituting perjury, defenses that are not available, rules for inconsistent statements, and sentencing is Minnesota Statute § 609.48. This statute provides a comprehensive framework for prosecuting individuals who make false material statements under oath or affirmation in legally recognized contexts.
The text of Minnesota Statute § 609.48 is as follows:
609.48 PERJURY.
Subdivision 1. Acts constituting.
Whoever makes a false material statement not believing it to be true in any of the following cases is guilty of perjury and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 4:
(1) in or for an action, hearing or proceeding of any kind in which the statement is required or authorized by law to be made under oath or affirmation;
(2) in any writing which is required or authorized by law to be under oath or affirmation;
(3) in any writing made according to section 358.115;
(4) in any writing made according to section 358.116; or
(5) in any other case in which the penalties for perjury are imposed by law and no specific sentence is otherwise provided.
Subd. 2. Defenses not available.
It is not a defense to a violation of this section that:
(1) the oath or affirmation was taken or administered in an irregular manner; or
(2) the declarant was not competent to give the statement; or
(3) the declarant did not know that the statement was material or believed it to be immaterial; or
(4) the statement was not used or, if used, did not affect the proceeding for which it was made; or
(5) the statement was inadmissible under the law of evidence.
Subd. 3. Inconsistent statements.
When the declarant has made two inconsistent statements under such circumstances that one or the other must be false and not believed by the declarant when made, it shall be sufficient for conviction under this section to charge and the jury to find that, without determining which, one or the other of such statements was false and not believed by the declarant. The period of limitations for prosecution under this subdivision runs from the first such statement.
Subd. 4. Sentence.
Whoever violates this section may be sentenced as follows:
(1) if the false statement was made upon the trial of a felony charge, or upon an application for an explosives license or use permit, to imprisonment for not more than seven years or to payment of a fine of not more than $14,000, or both; or
(2) in all other cases, to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
Subd. 5. Venue.
A violation of subdivision 1, clause (4), may be prosecuted in the county where the statement, under penalty of perjury, was signed, or the county of the district court in which the statement was filed.
To secure a conviction for perjury under Minnesota Statute § 609.48, the prosecution carries the significant burden of proving several essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Each element must be substantiated by evidence. Perjury is more than simply telling a lie; it involves a specific type of falsehood made under legally recognized circumstances requiring truthfulness. Understanding these core components is fundamental to analyzing a perjury charge and formulating an appropriate defense strategy.
Perjury is considered a serious offense in Minnesota because it undermines the foundation of the legal system and official processes that rely on truthful sworn statements. Minnesota Statute § 609.48 classifies perjury as a felony and establishes two different potential sentencing ranges based on the context in which the false statement was made. Understanding these potential penalties is crucial for anyone facing perjury charges.
The specific felony sentence depends on the circumstances:
As felony offenses, both levels of perjury carry significant collateral consequences upon conviction, including the loss of civil rights and long-term impacts on employment and reputation. Actual sentences are determined based on the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, considering offense severity and criminal history.
Perjury, at its heart, is about violating a solemn promise to tell the truth in situations where the law demands it. Minnesota Statute § 609.48 criminalizes intentionally lying under oath about something important – something “material” – in court proceedings, hearings, or specific types of sworn written documents. It’s not just any lie; it’s a lie told when formally sworn or affirmed to be truthful, concerning a fact that could potentially influence the outcome or understanding of the matter at hand.
The law covers various formal settings beyond just trial testimony. Depositions (sworn questioning outside of court), affidavits (sworn written statements), applications requiring verification under oath, and declarations made under penalty of perjury all fall under the umbrella of § 609.48. The key requirements are the administration of an oath or its legal equivalent, the falsity of the statement, the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity, and the statement’s materiality to the issue. The statute even addresses situations where someone makes two contradictory sworn statements, allowing conviction without proving exactly which one was the lie.
A witness is called to testify in a criminal assault trial. Under oath, the witness deliberately states they saw the defendant commit the assault, even though they know they were actually looking the other way at the time and saw nothing. The witness’s identification (or lack thereof) is a material fact in the trial. By intentionally making a false material statement under oath during the trial, the witness commits perjury. If the trial involved a felony charge, the higher penalty under Subd. 4(1) applies.
In a child custody dispute, one parent submits a sworn affidavit to the court. In the affidavit, the parent knowingly and falsely claims the other parent has a substance abuse problem and frequently leaves the child unattended, believing these false statements will influence the judge’s custody decision. These statements are material to the custody determination. Making false material statements in a writing required to be under oath constitutes perjury under § 609.48, Subd. 1(2).
An individual gives a sworn deposition (questioning under oath before trial) in a civil lawsuit, stating they were not present at a specific meeting relevant to the case. Later, during the trial for the same lawsuit, the same individual testifies under oath that they were present at that meeting. Both statements relate to a material fact. Under § 609.48, Subd. 3, the prosecution could charge perjury based on these inconsistent statements, arguing one must be false and not believed true when made, without needing to prove definitively which one was the lie.
A person applies for a specific government license or benefit that requires the applicant to sign the application form under penalty of perjury, affirming the truthfulness of the information provided (e.g., pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 358.116). The applicant knowingly includes false information about their income or qualifications, believing this false statement is necessary to obtain the license or benefit (making it material). Submitting this written application with a known false material statement under penalty of perjury violates § 609.48, Subd. 1(4).
A perjury charge under Minnesota Statute § 609.48 is a serious felony allegation, accusing an individual of deliberately lying under oath in a way that could undermine the legal process. Defending against such charges requires a careful examination of the specific statement made, the context in which it was made, the defendant’s state of mind, and the concept of materiality. While Subdivision 2 of the statute explicitly removes certain technical defenses (like irregular oath administration or the defendant’s belief about materiality), the prosecution must still prove every core element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
An effective defense strategy often involves challenging the prosecution’s proof on one or more of the essential elements. Was the statement actually false? Did the defendant truly believe it was false when they made it? Was the statement objectively material to the proceeding? Was the statement made under oath or in a context covered by the statute? An attorney analyzes the evidence, including transcripts, documents, and witness accounts, to identify weaknesses in the state’s case and build arguments demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct did not legally constitute perjury.
The most direct defense is to demonstrate that the statement alleged to be perjurious was, in fact, true or substantially true.
Perjury requires that the defendant made the statement not believing it to be true. If the defendant genuinely believed their statement was accurate at the time, they lacked the necessary criminal intent.
While the defendant’s subjective belief about materiality isn’t a defense (per Subd. 2), the prosecution must still prove the statement was objectively material to the proceeding.
The statement must have been made under oath or affirmation in one of the specific contexts listed in Subdivision 1.
A statement is material if it is relevant to the case or proceeding and could potentially influence the outcome or decision. It doesn’t necessarily mean the statement did influence the outcome, only that it had the capacity to do so. It relates to a fact that is significant to the issues being considered.
Yes. Subdivision 1(1) covers statements made “in or for an action, hearing or proceeding of any kind in which the statement is required or authorized by law to be made under oath or affirmation.” Depositions are formal proceedings where testimony is given under oath, making false material statements during a deposition potential perjury.
Yes. Subdivision 1(2) covers writings required or authorized by law to be under oath, and Subdivisions 1(3) and 1(4) cover writings made according to specific statutes allowing declarations under penalty of perjury. If a government application legally requires verification under oath or penalty of perjury, knowingly providing false material information can be perjury.
Perjury requires knowingly making a false statement not believing it to be true. If you honestly forgot or misremembered a fact and testified incorrectly based on your genuine (though flawed) recollection, you likely lacked the necessary criminal intent for perjury.
Likely not. The false statement must be “material.” Lying under oath about something completely irrelevant to the case or proceeding, which could not possibly influence the outcome, would fail the materiality element required for a perjury conviction.
Promptly correcting a false statement made under oath within the same proceeding can potentially serve as a defense or strong mitigating factor, as it may show you did not intend to stand by the falsehood. Some jurisdictions have specific “recantation” defenses. While Minnesota’s statute doesn’t explicitly list recantation as a defense, it could negate the element of not believing the statement to be true at the crucial time or show lack of intent.
Subdivision 2 prevents using things like irregular oath administration, incompetence, not knowing the statement was material, or the statement not affecting the outcome as independent defenses. However, the prosecution must still prove the core elements: the statement was false, you didn’t believe it was true, it was objectively material, and it was made under oath in a covered proceeding. You can still defend by challenging the prosecution’s proof of these core elements.
This means if you make two sworn statements about the same material fact that directly contradict each other (e.g., saying “yes” under oath at one point and “no” under oath later about the same event), the prosecution can charge perjury without proving which specific statement was the lie. They only need to prove that one of the two must have been false and not believed true when made.
Yes. Making a false report to police (Minn. Stat. § 609.505) involves giving false information to law enforcement, usually not under oath, to influence their actions. Perjury (§ 609.48) specifically involves lying under oath or equivalent affirmation in formal legal proceedings or sworn documents about a material matter.
No. Communications with your own attorney are typically confidential and not made under oath in a legal proceeding context covered by the perjury statute. Lying to your attorney, while unwise, is not perjury.
Federal court proceedings are governed by federal law. Lying under oath in federal court would be prosecuted under federal perjury statutes (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1621 or § 1623), not Minnesota Statute § 609.48.
Lying under oath during a felony trial or on an explosives application carries a maximum of 7 years/$14,000. Lying under oath in other covered situations (civil cases, misdemeanor trials, affidavits, etc.) carries a maximum of 5 years/$10,000.
Generally, no. Perjury typically requires a false statement of fact. Expressions of opinion, belief, interpretation, or prediction, even if ultimately wrong, are usually not considered factual assertions capable of being perjurious, unless stated in a way that falsely implies they are based on specific facts the speaker knows to be untrue.
As a felony, the statute of limitations for perjury in Minnesota is generally three years from the date the offense was committed (Minn. Stat. § 628.26). For inconsistent statements under Subd. 3, the period runs from the first inconsistent statement.
Perjury is a serious felony charge. If you are investigated for or charged with perjury, it is absolutely essential to contact a criminal defense attorney immediately. Do not speak to investigators or prosecutors without legal representation. An attorney can analyze the complex elements, investigate the facts, and protect your rights.
A conviction for perjury under Minnesota Statute § 609.48 is a felony offense that carries significant long-term consequences extending far beyond potential imprisonment or fines. Because perjury involves dishonesty under oath and undermines the justice system, a conviction creates a serious stain on an individual’s record and reputation, leading to substantial and often permanent barriers in many areas of life.
A perjury conviction results in a permanent felony criminal record. This record is readily accessible through background checks used for employment, housing, loans, professional licensing, and other critical life activities. Having a felony conviction, particularly one for a crime involving dishonesty like perjury, automatically disqualifies individuals from many opportunities and creates a significant lifelong stigma. Expungement of a felony record can be difficult.
Under Minnesota law, a felony conviction leads to the loss of fundamental civil rights. This includes the right to vote, the right to serve on a jury, and the right to hold public office, all of which are suspended until the sentence is fully completed (including probation or parole). Critically, a felony conviction results in a lifetime ban on possessing firearms or ammunition under both state and federal law. Restoring firearm rights after a felony conviction is a complex and often unsuccessful process.
Securing or maintaining employment becomes extremely challenging after a perjury conviction. Many employers are unwilling to hire individuals convicted of felonies, especially crimes involving dishonesty. Positions requiring trust, handling finances, security clearances, or licenses are often entirely foreclosed. Professional licensing boards (for lawyers, doctors, accountants, teachers, contractors, etc.) view perjury convictions very seriously and frequently impose disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or permanent revocation of the license needed to practice one’s profession.
A perjury conviction irreparably damages an individual’s reputation for honesty and trustworthiness. The very nature of the crime involves being found to have lied under oath in a formal setting. This can severely impact personal relationships and community standing. Furthermore, the conviction can be used to impeach the individual’s credibility if they ever need to testify as a witness in future unrelated legal proceedings (civil or criminal), potentially undermining their ability to be believed even when telling the truth.
A cornerstone of defending against perjury charges involves a meticulous analysis of whether the allegedly false statement was truly “material” to the proceeding or document in question. An attorney examines the context of the statement within the specific action, hearing, or writing. Could the statement, even if false, have realistically influenced the outcome or decision? Was it related to a central issue or merely a peripheral detail? While Minn. Stat. § 609.48, Subd. 2 states the defendant’s belief about materiality isn’t a defense, the prosecution must still prove objective materiality. An attorney can argue that the statement, based on the relevant legal issues and facts of the specific proceeding, lacked the necessary capacity to influence and therefore fails the materiality element required for conviction.
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that the statement was false but also that the defendant knew it was false or did not believe it to be true when making it. A defense attorney rigorously challenges the evidence on both fronts. This involves gathering evidence to corroborate the defendant’s statement, highlighting ambiguities or potential alternative interpretations of the statement, presenting evidence of the defendant’s genuine belief in the statement’s truth (even if mistaken), or demonstrating that the alleged falsity stemmed from confusion, faulty memory, or misunderstanding rather than intentional deceit. Cross-examining prosecution witnesses about the basis for claiming the statement was false and known to be false by the defendant is critical.
Perjury only applies to statements made under oath or legally recognized equivalent circumstances (like declarations under penalty of perjury per specific statutes) within the contexts listed in § 609.48, Subd. 1. An attorney investigates whether these procedural requirements were met. Was an oath actually administered? Was it administered properly by an authorized person (though minor irregularities aren’t a defense per Subd. 2)? Was the written document one that legally required signing under penalty of perjury? If the statement occurred in a context not covered by the statute or without the requisite oath or affirmation, the attorney can move to dismiss the charges based on the failure to meet these foundational elements.
Subdivision 3 presents a unique challenge, allowing conviction based on two contradictory sworn statements without proving which one was false. When facing charges under this provision, an attorney’s strategy involves scrutinizing the circumstances surrounding both statements. Were both statements genuinely made under oath in covered proceedings? Are they truly irreconcilable, or could there be an interpretation where both could be subjectively believed true (perhaps due to changing circumstances or memory)? The attorney may also challenge whether the prosecution has proven the defendant did not believe at least one of them when made. Furthermore, investigating the timing relative to the statute of limitations (running from the first statement) is essential. Negotiating such charges requires demonstrating potential ambiguities or lack of criminal intent surrounding the inconsistency.
