In modifying the quantitative rule to eliminate the requirement that the Commonwealth introduce direct testimony in every perjury prosecution, we follow a number of other States which recently have determined that convictions for perjury may be based on evidence other than direct testimony. E.g., State v. Sanchez, 204 Conn. 472 (1987), and cases cited therein; People v. Rosner, 67 N.Y.2d 290 (1986); McGuire v. State, 707 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. App. 1986). Where other kinds of evidence are "substituted for the testimony of a live witness, however, that evidence must be of a highly reliable order and the necessity for corroboration is not eliminated."
The State met its burden under Article 38.18 (a). See Chandler v. State, 756 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1988, pet'n ref'd); Springer v. State, 721 S.W.2d 510 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, pet'n ref'd); McGuire v. State, 707 S.W.2d 223 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, pet'n ref'd). Point of Error No. 3 is overruled.
The article now stands for the proposition that to obtain a conviction for perjury or aggravated perjury the State need only produce more than one witness. McGuire v. State, 707 S.W.2d 223 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, pet. ref'd); Springer v. State, 721 S.W.2d 510 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, pet. ref'd). The state has met this burden.
McGuire v. State, 707 S.W.2d 223, 230 (Tex.App. 1986, pet. ref'd). Counsel's failure to properly investigate and prepare for trial is also faulted by appellant.
This claim is not correct. Article 38.18(a) requires a conviction for perjury or aggravated perjury to be proven by more than one witness to the falsity of the statement. McGuire v. State, 707 S.W.2d 223 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, pet. ref'd). Appellant's second point of error is overruled.