Summary
The Supreme Court of Michigan held that materiality is not an element of statutory perjury under MCL 750.422 and MCL 750.423 because the statutory text does not require that a false statement concern a material matter. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Tiffany Free Lively's perjury conviction. The opinion also concluded that materiality, if it were an element, would have to be submitted to the jury under United States v. Gaudin.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether materiality of the allegedly false statement is an element of perjury under MCL 750.422 and MCL 750.423.
- Whether the trial court erred by refusing to submit materiality to the jury.
Holdings
- Materiality is not an element of Michigan's statutory offense of perjury because MCL 750.423 defines perjury as willfully swearing falsely regarding any matter or thing for which an oath is authorized or required and does not require that the matter be material.
- Because materiality is not an element of Michigan's statutory perjury offense, the trial court did not err by refusing to submit materiality to the jury.
Key quotations
“Our Legislature has thus defined perjury as a willfully false statement regarding any matter or thing, if an oath is authorized or required. Noticeably absent from this definition is any reference to materiality.” (470 Mich. at 253)
“The plain language of our perjury statute alters the common law and does not require proof of materiality.” (470 Mich. at 256)
Factual background
Defendant's husband obtained a default judgment of divorce, and defendant moved to set it aside. At the hearing, she testified and submitted an affidavit stating that she had not known about the divorce proceeding and had not been served with the divorce complaint. The trial court set aside the default judgment, but the prosecution charged defendant with perjury based on those statements; she was convicted after the court refused to submit materiality to the jury.
Procedural history
After defendant's perjury trial, the jury found her guilty. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that materiality was an element of perjury that had to be submitted to the jury and that the instructional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the conviction.
Remand instructions
The judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals was reversed, and defendant's perjury conviction was reinstated.