Background
Jennifer Marie Norland was convicted of one count of perjury under ORS 162.065 following a bench trial in Grant County Circuit Court. The conviction rested on an in-court statement that she had an MRI scheduled for the following day.
The trial court concluded that the MRI statement was an “unsworn declaration” for purposes of the perjury statute. Norland appealed, arguing that the court should have granted her motion for judgment of acquittal.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed. Under ORS 194.805(7), as incorporated into the perjury statute by ORS 162.055, an “unsworn declaration” must be contained in a signed record and given under penalty of perjury.
Norland’s statement was neither signed nor made under penalty of perjury. The state conceded that it therefore did not qualify as an unsworn declaration, and the Court of Appeals agreed with and accepted that concession.
Key Takeaways
- An oral in-court statement does not qualify as an “unsworn declaration” merely because it concerns a material issue.
- For purposes of Oregon’s perjury statute, an unsworn declaration must be in a signed record and made under penalty of perjury.
- The court reversed the conviction after concluding that the evidence did not establish the charged form of perjury.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Oregon courts must apply the statutory definition of “unsworn declaration” when evaluating a perjury charge. A false statement cannot support that theory of liability unless it satisfies the statute’s signature and penalty-of-perjury requirements.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as permitted by that rule.