Wofford v. State

10 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. State

    34 Ala. App. 462 (Ala. Crim. App. 1949)   Cited 12 times

    To sustain a conviction for perjury there must be two witnesses to the corpus delicti, or one witness with strong corroboration. Wofford v. State, 21 Ala. App. 521, 109 So. 886; Pressley v. State, 18 Ala. App. 40, 88 So. 291; Williams v. State, 68 Ala. 551; Knight v. State, 30 Ala. App. 97, 1 So.2d 668. A.A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and L.E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State

  2. Broadway v. State

    52 Ala. App. 249 (Ala. Crim. App. 1974)   Cited 6 times
    In Broadway, supra, the appellant entered a plea of guilty to perjury, but was allowed to withdraw his plea prior to trial.

    70 C.J.S. Perjury pp. 461-463; Code of Ala. 1940, Title 14, Sec. 375; Williams v. State, 34 Ala. App. 462, 41 So.2d 605; Wright v. State, 30 Ala. App. 196, 3 So.2d 321; Knight v. State, 241 Ala. 152, 1 So.2d 669. Proof of contradictory statements cannot form a corpus delicti, no matter how many witnesses testify to these facts, it cannot be the equivalent of corroborative proof of the corpus delicti. Williams v. State, 34 Ala. App. 462, 41 So.2d 605; 48 C.J. Section 166 P. 900-905; 41 Am.Jur. Perjury Section 69; Wafford v. State, 21 Ala. App. 521, 109 So. 886. A confession must be corroborated by independent evidence of a corpus delicti.

  3. Dorch v. State

    83 So. 2d 250 (Ala. Crim. App. 1955)   Cited 1 times

    There was no corroboration of the testimony of the arresting officer. Pressly v. State, 18 Ala. App. 40, 88 So. 291; McWhorter v. U.S., 5 Cir., 193 F.2d 982; Williams v. State, 34 Ala. App. 462, 41 So.2d 605; Wofford v. State, 21 Ala. App. 521, 109 So. 886. John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Robt. Straub, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

  4. McFee v. State

    510 So. 2d 790 (Miss. 1987)   Cited 8 times
    Finding defendant's two prior conflicting sworn statements plus the testimony of defendant's mother that one statement was true sufficient to sustain a perjury conviction

    " This doctrine was adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court in Wofford v. State, 21 Ala. App. 521, 109 So. 886. However, this Court holds that when proof of one accused of perjury who made sworn statements which conflict with the sworn statement upon which the perjury is founded, is supported by corroboration of a single witness, such is sufficient to warrant a conviction.

  5. State v. Jackson

    88 Mont. 420 (Mont. 1930)   Cited 14 times
    In State v. Jackson, 88 Mont. 420, 293 P. 309, the Court cited Gibbs as authority of the requirement that perjury must be proved by the testimony of two witnesses, or one witness and corroborating circumstances indicating that this was the law even prior to the passage of section 93-1401-1, R.C.M. 1947.

    Not only was the burden on the state to prove the falsity of the statements charged in the information but it was essential that such falsity "must be proved by the testimony of more than one witness." (Sec. 10608, Rev. Codes 1921; Yarbrough v. State, 79 Fla. 256, 83 So. 873; Wofford v. State, 21 Ala. App. 521, 109 So. 886; People v. Smith, 3 Cal.App. 68, 84 P. 452; People v. Woodcock, 52 Cal.App. 412, 199 P. 565; Aguierre v. State, 31 Tex.Crim. 519, 21 S.W. 256; Hammer v. United States, 271 U.S. 620, 70 L.Ed. 1118, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 603; Goslin v. Commonwealth, 121 Ky. 698, 90 S.W. 223; Blakemore v. State, 39 Okla. Cr. 355, 265 P. 152; Thompson v. State, (Okla.Crim.) 268 P. 314; Godby v. State, 88 Tex.Crim. 360, 227 S.W. 192.)

  6. Wofford v. State

    109 So. 887 (Ala. 1926)   Cited 1 times

    PER CURIAM. Petition of Jim Wofford for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Wofford v. State, 21 Ala. App. 521, 109 So. 886. Writ denied.

  7. Smith v. State

    46 Ala. App. 157 (Ala. Crim. App. 1970)   Cited 5 times

    William v. State, 34 Ala. App. 462, 41 So.2d 605. The conviction for perjury may be based upon either two witnesses to the corpus delicti or one witness with strong corroboration. Wofford v. State, 21 Ala. App. 521, 109 So. 886. The judgment of conviction should not be reversed on the ground of improper admission of evidence or procedure where it appears that the error complained of has not probably injuriously affected the substantial rights of the accused. Rule 45, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court.

  8. Malone v. State

    132 So. 2d 749 (Ala. Crim. App. 1961)   Cited 6 times

    MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Paul T. Gish, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. An indictment charging that accused swore falsely in a prosecution for violating the prohibition law is sufficient. Thomas v. State, 13 Ala. App. 421, 69 So. 413; Wofford v. State, 21 Ala. App. 521, 109 So. 886; Id., 215 Ala. 106, 109 So. 887. PRICE, Judge.

  9. Knight v. State

    1 So. 2d 668 (Ala. Crim. App. 1941)   Cited 9 times

    To sustain a conviction there must be two witnesses to the corpus delicti or one with strong corroboration; and this corroboration, to be sufficient, must be of the very act, the corpus delicti, the giving of material testimony which is wilfully and corruptly false. Wofford v. State, 21 Ala. App. 521, 109 So. 886; Peterson v. State, 74 Ala. 34; Pressley v. State, 18 Ala. App. 40, 88 So. 291; Williams v. State, 68 Ala. 551. If the evidence fails to show materiality of the alleged false statements, defendant would be entitled to the affirmative charge. McDaniel v. State, 13 Ala. App. 318, 69 So. 351.

  10. Capps v. State

    194 So. 689 (Ala. Crim. App. 1940)   Cited 15 times

    Where an indictment charges perjury in that the defendant willfully and corruptly swore falsely to certain material facts, it is incumbent upon the State to prove the allegations in the indictment as therein laid; and the falsity of the testimony, as to each material allegation, must be established by the testimony of more than one witness or by the testimony of one witness strongly corroborated by circumstances. Wofford v. State, 21 Ala. App. 521, 109 So. 886; Id., 215 Ala. 106, 109 So. 887. A defendant cannot be convicted of perjury on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness.