Lying under oath in Texas is prosecuted under Chapter 37 of the Texas Penal Code, which creates two separate offenses: perjury, a Class A misdemeanor, and aggravated perjury, a third-degree felony. The difference turns on where the false statement was made and whether it could have affected the outcome of an official proceeding. The chapter also sets rules on materiality, retraction, and how prosecutors can win a case built on two contradictory sworn statements.
What Perjury Is Under Section 37.02
Section 37.02 defines perjury around two elements: the person made a false statement under oath (or swore to a previously made false statement) with intent to deceive, and they knew what the statement meant when they made it. The oath has to be one the law required or authorized.1State of Texas. Texas Penal Code Section 37.02 – Perjury It does not have to be given in a courtroom. Affidavits, depositions, and other sworn contexts count.
The statute also reaches false unsworn declarations. Chapter 132 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code lets people submit written statements “under penalty of perjury” instead of notarized affidavits in many situations, and lying in one of those written declarations carries the same criminal exposure as lying under a traditional oath.1State of Texas. Texas Penal Code Section 37.02 – Perjury The declaration must be written and include a jurat identifying the declarant and stating the contents are true under penalty of perjury.
One point people miss: basic perjury does not require the lie to be “material.” Section 37.02 says nothing about materiality. A false statement, intent to deceive, and knowledge of the statement’s meaning are enough. Materiality only enters the picture when the charge is elevated.
When Perjury Becomes Aggravated Perjury
Section 37.03 adds two elements on top of basic perjury. The false statement must have been made during or in connection with an official proceeding, and it must be material.2State of Texas. Texas Penal Code Section 37.03 – Aggravated Perjury Official proceedings include trials, grand jury investigations, legislative hearings, and administrative proceedings where testimony is taken under oath.
That line separates routine false swearing — say, a misleading answer in an affidavit filed with a business application — from lies told where the justice system depends on truthful testimony. A lie during a divorce trial or a criminal grand jury hearing that could have changed the outcome opens the door to felony charges rather than a misdemeanor.
How “Material” Is Defined
Section 37.04 says a statement is material if it could have affected the course or outcome of the official proceeding, regardless of whether the statement would have been admissible under the rules of evidence.3State of Texas. Texas Penal Code Section 37.04 – Materiality The lie does not have to have actually changed the result. The potential is enough.
Two things about this section trip defendants up. Materiality is a question of law for the judge, not a fact question for the jury. And it is not a defense that the person believed their false statement was immaterial.3State of Texas. Texas Penal Code Section 37.04 – Materiality If the statement objectively could have influenced the proceeding, the element is satisfied whatever the defendant thought at the time.
Penalties
Basic perjury is a Class A misdemeanor. The maximum punishment is up to one year in county jail, a fine of up to $4,000, or both.4State of Texas. Penal Code Chapter 12 – Punishments Judges can impose less, including probation, depending on the circumstances and the defendant’s criminal history.
Aggravated perjury is a third-degree felony. That carries two to ten years in prison and a possible fine up to $10,000.5State of Texas. Texas Penal Code Section 12.34 – Third Degree Felony Punishment The jump from one year in county jail to as much as a decade in state prison reflects how Texas treats lies that directly obstruct court proceedings.
Statute of Limitations
Prosecutors do not have unlimited time. Basic perjury carries a two-year statute of limitations, the standard rule for Class A and Class B misdemeanors. Aggravated perjury, as a third-degree felony, falls under the general felony limitations period of three years.6State of Texas. Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 12 – Limitation The clock starts when the false statement is made, not when it is discovered. That timing rule can matter when a lie only surfaces long after the underlying proceeding ends.
Defenses and Special Rules
Retraction
Section 37.05 gives aggravated perjury a narrow escape hatch. It is a defense that the person retracted the false statement before two things happened: the testimony at the official proceeding was completed, and it had become apparent that the lie would be exposed.7State of Texas. Texas Penal Code Chapter 37 – Perjury and Other Falsification Both conditions have to hold when the person retracts. If the proceeding has already ended, or someone has already flagged the inconsistency, the defense is gone.
Retraction only applies to aggravated perjury. There is no statutory retraction defense for basic perjury, which makes sense because basic perjury does not require an official proceeding at all.
Inconsistent Statements
Section 37.06 gives prosecutors a strong tool. When a person makes two sworn statements that cannot both be true, the prosecution can charge perjury without identifying which one was the lie.7State of Texas. Texas Penal Code Chapter 37 – Perjury and Other Falsification The indictment does not have to specify which version is false, and at trial the state does not have to prove which one it was. The contradiction is enough. That rule is especially useful when a witness gives conflicting testimony across different proceedings.
Irregularities in the Oath
Section 37.07 closes off a common technicality. Problems with how the oath was administered are not a defense.8State of Texas. Texas Penal Code Section 37.07 – Irregularities No Defense A notary who used the wrong form or a clerk who skipped a word in the oath does not give the defendant a way out.
Proving Intent Is Where Most Cases Turn
Perjury cases live and die on the intent element. The state has to prove the defendant knowingly lied, not that they were confused, mistaken, or remembering events differently. That is why relatively few false statements under oath actually lead to charges: showing someone intentionally lied rather than got it wrong is a high bar.
Evidence usually comes from contradictions. Prior sworn statements that conflict with the one at issue, documents that disprove the claim, or testimony from other witnesses who were present. Recordings, emails, and other records that show the defendant knew the truth at the time can also carry the state’s proof. At trial, the defense typically challenges whether the statement was actually false, whether the defendant knew it was false, and — in aggravated perjury cases — whether it was material. The materiality question goes to the judge; falsity and intent go to the jury.
Consequences Beyond the Sentence
The formal sentence is often the smaller problem. A perjury conviction signals dishonesty, and it shows up on background checks. Professions that turn on trust — law, medicine, accounting, law enforcement, education — treat a conviction centered on intentional lying under oath as close to disqualifying, and state licensing boards have broad discretion to deny, suspend, or revoke licenses based on it.
An aggravated perjury conviction, as a felony punishable by more than one year, triggers the federal firearms ban under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits possessing, purchasing, or transporting firearms or ammunition.9Justice.gov. Federal Statutes Imposing Collateral Consequences Upon Conviction The ban is permanent unless the conviction is expunged or civil rights are fully restored. A basic perjury conviction, being a misdemeanor, does not trigger the federal ban unless it involves domestic violence.
For noncitizens, the fallout can be severe. Federal immigration authorities treat perjury as a crime involving moral turpitude, which can trigger removal or make a person inadmissible. For lawful permanent residents seeking citizenship, giving false testimony to obtain an immigration benefit is a statutory bar to the “good moral character” required for naturalization, even if the false information was not material to the application.10eCFR. 8 CFR 316.10 – Good Moral Character For naturalization, the materiality of the lie does not matter. The act of lying under oath is enough.
A perjury conviction also follows a person into every later courtroom appearance. Opposing counsel can use it to attack credibility as a witness, and judges and juries give weight to a prior conviction for lying under oath. In custody disputes, contract litigation, or any case where credibility matters, that record can undermine a person’s position before they say a word.