State v. Sharinghousen

Under Oregon Uniform Criminal Jury Instruction (UCrJI) 1029, inconsistencies between a witness's trial testimony and the trial testimony of another witness can support the giving of a witness-false-in-part instruction if the jury could find from those inconsistencies that the witness willfully testified falsely.

Defendant appealed his conviction of failure to perform the duties of a driver when there is damage to property. ORS 811.700. On appeal, Defendant argued the trial court erred in giving the “witness-false-in-part” jury instruction, UCrJI 1029, because the record was insufficient to support the instruction. The State argued that the trial court did not err because there was a contradiction in the testimony about whether Defendant’s collision with another vehicle produced visible damage to that vehicle. The Court held that the trial court did not err in giving the “witness-false-in-part” instruction because based on the testimony at trial a jury could reasonably find that Defendant’s testimony was consciously false, given its significance to the charged offense. Affirmed.