TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Witham

STATE OF OREGON v. OLIVER WITHAM

State v. Witham, 6 Or. 366 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1877
Judges
McArthur
Citations
6 Or. 366
Headnotes
Indictment eor Perjury — What it must Set Forth. — In all indictments for perjury or subornation of perjury, it is necessary to set forth the substance of the controversy or matter in respect to which the crime was committed.
Summary
Appeal from Benton County. The respondent was indicted for the crime of perjury, committed before a grand jury. The indictment set forth, with particulars of time-and place, the fact of the examination of the respondent as a witness before a grand jury duly impaneled, etc., and it sets forth the substance of the alleged false testimony, and alleges that “the said matters so testified” were “material, and the said testimony” was willfully and corruptly false. The substance of the matter or controversy pending before the grand jury, and concerning which the alleged false testimony was given, was not contained in the indictment.. The court below sustained a demurrer to the indictment, and thereupon the state appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — McArthur

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court, McArthur, J.:

The indictment herein is fatally defective, because it fails to show that the testimony, alleged to be false, was material to some controversy or matter which was being investigated by the grand jury, and which that body had jurisdiction to inquire into. In all indictments for perjury or subornation of perjury, it is necessary to set forth the substance of the controversy or matter in respect to which the crime was committed. (Grim. Code, sec. 87.)

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1934: 11936: 11939: 11968: 119342026peak 1934 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Beckley v. State443 P.2d 51 (Alaska 1968)
  2. State v. Lowe88 P.2d 502 (Idaho 1939) · Concurrence
  3. Treece v. People40 P.2d 233 (Colo. 1934) · Dissent
  4. Williford v. State185 S.E. 611 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Beckley v. State443 P.2d 51 (Alaska 1968)
  2. State v. Lowe88 P.2d 502 (Idaho 1939) · Concurrence
  3. Williford v. State185 S.E. 611 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936)
  4. Treece v. People40 P.2d 233 (Colo. 1934) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list