The rule as to the corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice applies to a prosecution for a perjury. If the statute requires corroboration, the corroboration cannot be furnished by the testimony of an accomplice and usually whether the witness is or is not an accomplice is for the jury to determine.$1 The direct evidence of the witness may be corroborated by circumstantial evidence. All relevant evidence which, if true, tends to corroborate him, should go to the jury, and it is for them to determine whether the corroboration is sufficient to convince them of the falsity of the defendant's testimony beyond a reasonable doubt.62 It has been repeatedly held that while corroboration is essential the additional evidence need not be such as, standing by itself, would justify a conviction in case where the testimony of a single witness is sufficient for a conviction. And the written or oral admissions of the accused, or documentary evidence found in his possession, or in the possession of those who may be criminally associated with him, may be received as corroborative, and these, if believed by the jury, will be equivalent to another witness.65 v. Hunter, 181 Mo. 316, 80 S. W. 955; Nance v. State, 126 Ga. 95, 54 S. E. 932; Howell v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 104 S. W. 685, 31 Ky. L. 983; Parham v. State, 3 Ga. App. 468, 60 S. E. 123; State v. Pratt, 21 S. Dak. 305, 112 N. W. 152; State v. Faulkner, 175 Mo. 546, 75 S. W. 116; Bell v. State, 5 Ga. App. 701, 63 S. E. 860 (holding that the procuring of one to commit perjury may be proved by the evidence of the person suborned). People v. Gilhooley, 187 N. Y. 551, 80 N. E. 1116. 01 State v. Blize, 111 Mo. 464, 20 S. W. 210; Beach v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 240, 22 S. W. 976; State v. Swaim, 97 N. Car. 462, 2 S. E. 68; People v. Hayes, 70 Hun (N. Y.) III, 24 N. Y. S. 194; Maines v. State, 26 Tex. App. 14, 9 S. W. 51; Gartman v. State, 16 Tex. App. 215; Commonwealth V. Parker, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 212; State v. Heed, 57 Mo. 64 63 252; People v. Davis, 61 Cal. 536; Williams v. Commonwealth, 91 Pa. St. 493; Maroney v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. 524, 78 S. W. 696. Under a statute requiring a credible witness with corroboration, an accomplice being by law discredited is not a credible witness, so that there must be at least one credible witness aside from the accomplice. Conant v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 610, 103 S. W. 897. 63 State v. Hunter, 181 Mo. 316, 80 S. W. 955. 67 State v. Swafford, 98 Iowa 362, N. W. 284; United States v. De Amador, 6 N. Mex. 173, 27 Pac. 488; Brooks v. State, 29 Tex. App. 582, 16 S. W. 542; United States v. Wood, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 430, 440, 441, 10 L. ed. 527; State v. Hunter, 181 Mo. 316, 80 S. W. 955; Schmidt v. United States, 133 Fed. 257, 66 C. C. A. 389. Where the indictment contains several assignments of perjury, a conviction cannot be had on the direct evidence of a living witness to the falsity of one with circumstantial evidence of the falsity of another. The evidence of the witness and the evidence of circumstances must both bear upon the falsity of the same statement of fact.66 But several assignments on material matters may be joined where they all relate to the same transaction and if there is sufficient evidence to sustain one or more of them the prosecution need not prove all. Whether a witness is credible, under a statute requiring corroboration by evidence of a credible witness, is a question for the jury." In conclusion, it may be said that any fact essential to conviction, except the falsity of the testimony given by the accused, may be proved by the uncorroborated testimony of a single living witness." 67 $469. Falsity of the testimony.-The falsity of the statement, or of the evidence to the truth of which the accused has sworn, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.TO be dispensed with are thus tersely Williams v. Commonwealth, 91 Pa. enumerated in United States V. St. 493, 501; State v. Hascall, 6 N. Wood, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 430, on page H. 352; Harris v. People, 64 N. Y. 440: 148; Commonwealth v. DeCost, 35 Pa. Super. Ct. 88; Adellberger v. State (Tex. Cr., 1897), 39 S. W. 103. "It will not be sufficient to prove by one inadequate line of testimony that one statement made by the defendant is false, and then by another inadequate line of testimony that another statement made by him is false." Wharton Cr. Ev., § 387. 1. Where the accused has sworn to a fact which is directly disproved by documentary or written testimony springing from himself (i. e., a written admission) under circumstances showing a corrupt intent. 2. Where the fact sworn to is directly contradicted by a public record with which the accused is proved to have had an actual acquaintance. 3. Where he swears to what he must necessarily have known to be false, and where the truth can be proved by his own letters relating to the fact, or by other written evidence found in his possession, and which has been treated by him as containing a true account of the facts stated. State v. Taylor, 202 Mo. 1, 100 S. W. 41; McLaren v. State, 4 Ga. App. 643, 62 S. E. 138. 68 Meeks v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 420. 24 S. W. 98; Kitchen v. State, 29 Tex. App. 45, 14 S. W. 392. 69 United States v. Hall, 44 Fed. 864, 10 L. R. A. 324; People v. Hayes, 70 Hun (N. Y.) 111, 24 N. Y. S. 194. 70 Howell v. Commonwealth (Ky.). 104 S. W. 685, 31 Ky. L. 983; People Any fact is relevant which proves or tends to prove or to disprove either its truth or its falsity." Though both at common law and by statute corroboration is required, the falsity of the statement may be proved by circumstantial evidence."2 § 470. Proof of the testimony alleged to be false.-It must be shown that the accused was sworn,73 by an officer who had legal authority to administer the oath." The form of the oath is not material. The most important question is, did the accused intend to be sworn and was he sworn in a form and manner which he regarded as binding?75 For he must by some unequivocal act consciously take upon himself the obligation of an oath.76 All the circumstances connected with the taking of the oath are relevant. The person who has administered the oath or any person who is present must be permitted to testify as to all the facts connected with it upon the v. Strassman, 112 Cal. 683, 45 Pac. 72 Plummer v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. 202, 33 S. W. 228; Gandy v. State, 23 Neb. 436, 36 N. W. 817; People v. Porter, 104 Cal. 415, 38 Pac. 88; State v. Hunter, 181 Mo. 316, 80 S. W. 955. 73 Sloan v. State, 71 Miss. 459, 14 So. 262. A copy of an oath may be received if the original is missing. State v. Matlock, 5 Pen. (Del.) 401, 64 Atl. 259. 74 United States v. Curtis, 107 U. S. 671, 27 L. ed. 534, 2 Sup. Ct. 507; People v. Nolte, 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 674, 44 N. Y. S. 443; Markey v. State, 47 Fla. 38, 37 So. 53; Manning v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. 326, 81 S. W. 957; Phillips v. State, 5 .Ga. App. 597, 63 S. E. 667; State v. Pratt, 21 S. Dak. 305, 112 N. W. 152. (By clerk in open court is sufficient.) State v. Day, 108 Minn. 121, 121 N. W. 611. See Elliott Evidence, § 3074. 76 Markey v. State, 47 Fla. 38, 37 So. 53. 78 question of whether the accused was actually sworn or not." Thus, is may be shown that the oath was interpreted to the accused. The authority of the officer to administer the oath may be presumed under some circumstances. The burden is on the state to prove that the officer was authorized to administer an oath, as e. g., where he is a notary public, to show his jurisdiction included the place of the oath and the time when it was taken." Usually proof of an officer de facto will suffice and his written appointment need not be produced.80 The official character may always be shown by the production of the written appointment,1 though, if the original appointment cannot be found secondary evidence is admissible.82 The fact that there are irregularities in an appointment of an officer to take testimony or that the order appointing him fails to designate him by any official title, or that the officer who administered the oath knew at that time that it was false and that it was made for a fraudulent purpose is not material.84 83 The testimony in giving which the perjury is alleged to have been committed must be shown; the best evidence is the record or a certified copy. A stenographer may read his notes of the testimony given by the accused, and which is alleged to be false, if he is able to swear that the notes contained a true and correct transcript of all the testimony given by the accused.85 It has also been held that parol evidence given by one who has heard the alleged false testimony is admissible even though a record may be in existence. It is not necessary that the witness shall 81 Mahon v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. 234, Leaptrot v. State, 51 Fla. 57, 40 So. 79 S. W. 28, 67 L. R. A. 499n. 616; State v. Pratt, 21 S. Dak. 305, 112 N. W. 152. se State v. Gibbs, 10 Mont. 213, 25 Pac. 289, 10 L. R. A. 749n; State v. 87 88 testify to the identical language which it is alleged in the indictment was used by the accused, or that he should recollect all that the accused said, if he can repeat in substance that which was alleged to be false. One who was present may testify to oral statements made by the accused corresponding in substance to the contents of the alleged false affidavit, and the fact that the signature to an affidavit was in the handwriting of the accused need not be proved, but will be presumed where the affidavit was actually used for him in court. It must usually be proved that the perjury was committed in a judicial proceedings. Proof that the perjury was committed in a judicial proceedings usually consists of the record of such proceedings with oral evidence to identify the accused as the witness who testified falsely." The object of the introduction of such evidence is to show the jurisdiction of the court, the regularity of the proceedings and the materiality of the evidence." Jurisdiction will usually be presumed where the record is apparently regular in the absence of proof to the contrary. The fact that the proceedings are avoidable only does not destroy jurisdiction and perjury may be committed. Nor can the fact that the accused was not warned that any statements made by him might be used against him, authorize the court to exclude his evidence given in a former trial or in some other prior proceedings where he is subsequently tried for perjury committed under such circumstances. 93 Woolridge, 45 Ore. 389, 78 Pac. 333; tain v. State, 22 Tex. App. 100, 2 S. W. 854; Washington v. State, 23 Tex. App. 336, 5 S. W. 119; State v. Howard, 137 Mo. 289, 38 S. W. 908. 1 State v. Brown, 111 La. 170, 35 'McLaren v. State, 4 Ga. App. 643, So. 501; State v. Justesen (Utah), 62 S. E. 138. 99 Pac. 456. |