Delaware § 1225 Inconsistent statements under oath; no need to prove one false; framing indictment; proof of irreconcilable inconsistency; conviction of lesser offense

Delaware Statutes

§ 1225 — Inconsistent statements under oath; no need to prove one false; framing indictment; proof of irreconcilable inconsistency; conviction of lesser offense

Delaware § 1225

JurisdictionDelaware

Title11

PartDelaware Criminal Code

Ch. 5SPECIFIC OFFENSES

Subch.Offenses Against Public Administration

This text of Delaware § 1225 (Inconsistent statements under oath; no need to prove one false; framing indictment; proof of irreconcilable inconsistency; conviction of lesser offense) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Del. Code tit. 11, § 1225 (2026).

Text

When a person has made 2 statements under oath which are inconsistent to the degree that 1 of them is necessarily false, and the circumstances are such that each statement, if false, is perjurious, the inability of the prosecution to establish specifically which of the 2 statements is the false one does not preclude a prosecution for perjury. The prosecution may be conducted as follows:

(1)The indictment or information may set forth the 2 statements and, without designating either, charge that 1 of them is false and perjurious.

(2)The falsity of one or the other of the 2 statements may be established by proof of their irreconcilable inconsistency. Such proof is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of falsity.

(3)If perjury of different degrees would be established by the making

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

When a person has made 2 statements under oath which are inconsistent to the degree that 1 of them is necessarily false, and the circumstances are such that each statement, if false, is perjurious, the inability of the prosecution to establish specifically which of the 2 statements is the false one does not preclude a prosecution for perjury. The prosecution may be conducted as follows:

(1) The indictment or information may set forth the 2 statements and, without designating either, charge that 1 of them is false and perjurious.

(2) The falsity of one or the other of the 2 statements may be established by proof of their irreconcilable inconsistency. Such proof is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of falsity.

(3) If perjury of different degrees would be established by the making of the 2 statements, hypothetically assuming that each is false and perjurious, the defendant may be convicted of the lesser degree at most.