That a declarant may be guilty of perjury only where the false statement was made under an oath required by law has been recognized in many jurisdictions, either by statute or through case law. See Ex parte Pack, 1 P.2d 817 (Okla.Cr.App. 1931); State v. Ledford, 81 P.2d 830 (Wash. 1938); State v. Brady, 425 P.2d 155 (Utah 1967); State v. Devitt, 262 N.W.2d 73 (Wis. 1978); People v. Emmons, 162 N.W.2d 117 (Mich.App. 1968); State v. Warren, 539 P.2d 184 (Ariz.App. 1975); People v. White, 265 P.2d 115 (Cal.App. 1954); In re Parmes, 437 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn.App. 1968). Such is also the case under our statute.

n committed by appellant consisted of his testimony concerning persons, named by him, who he stated contributed to the campaign fund. Concerning this, appellant testified before the grand jury that he had a list of all county employees, and a record of the amounts they gave him, or which were turned over to him, as far as his record showed, and again that the list concerning which he testified before the grand jury covered all that he had any record of. It is argued that appellant's testimony was so qualified that it did not amount to any positive statement, and that the evidence therefore does not support a conviction of the crime of perjury. He also contends that the good faith of the witness, or the lack thereof, should always be considered, as well as his state of mind, whether confused or otherwise, and his recollection of the matters concerning which he was testifying, whether good or bad. In this connection, appellant cites the cases of In re Bond, 187 Wn. 200, 60 P.2d 54, and State v. Ledford, 195 Wn. 581, 81 P.2d 830. Respondent argues that, considering appellant's entire testimony before the grand jury, the record supports the jury's verdict that appellant did commit perjury in his testimony given before the grand jury.

In the case of State of Washington v. Ledford, 195 Wn. 581, 81 P.2d 830, at page 831 (1938), the court stated of the opinion the following: "Even in such cases, it seems to be the rule that perjury will not be predicated upon the false statements corrected before the submission of the case in which made."

While there are few decisions in point, it is probably the rule that one is not guilty of perjury who corrects his testimony before the hearing closes. Brannen v. State, 114 So. 429 (Fla. 1927); Henry v. Hamilton, 7 Blackf. 506 (Ind. 1845); Peo. v. Gillette, 111 N.Y.S. 133 ( App. Div. 1908); Peo. v. Glass, 181 N.Y.S. 547, 549 ( App. Div. 1920); State v. Ledford, 81 Pac.2d 830 (Wash. 1938); Burdick, Law of Crimes ( Ed. 1946), § 329. In our own State, upon a trial for perjury, the jury must consider "the whole evidence given by the prisoner at the time of the alleged perjury, in connection with all its qualifications, explanations and modifications."