Michigan Senate Bill SB0912

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/12/24
• Refer: 6/12/24

Caption

Crimes: perjury; requirements for crime of perjury; modify. Amends sec. 423 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.423).

Impact

If enacted, SB 912 will update the legal framework surrounding perjury in Michigan, ensuring that individuals are held accountable for false declarations in an age where electronic documentation is prevalent. The changes aim to strengthen the enforcement of perjury laws by clarifying the definitions and extending their applicability to include electronic records. This could lead to increased prosecutions for individuals who provide false information under oath, which is significant in upholding the integrity of legal processes and public trust in the justice system.

Summary

Senate Bill 912 seeks to amend the Michigan Penal Code, specifically section 423, which pertains to the crime of perjury. The proposed changes focus on clarifying the definitions and requirements for an individual to be charged with this crime. The bill outlines that any individual authorized to take an oath or required to do so by law, who willfully provides false statements related to material matters, can be found guilty of perjury, a felony punishable by a maximum of 15 years in prison. The amendments also define what constitutes a 'record' and what it means to 'sign' such a record for the purposes of the law, thereby expanding the scope of what can be considered perjury in a modern context, including electronic records and signatures.

Contention

While the bill is likely to receive support from those advocating for stricter enforcement of perjury laws, there may be concerns regarding the breadth of the definitions used. Critics may argue that the inclusion of electronic records introduces complexities that could lead to misunderstandings about what constitutes perjury, especially among individuals who may not fully comprehend the legal implications of their electronic communications. Additionally, the bill may raise questions about the balance between accountability and the potential for unintended consequences in the prosecution of individuals for perjury, particularly in cases where intent may be difficult to prove.