In any prosecution for perjury or false swearing, except a prosecution based upon inconsistent statements pursuant to section 18-8-505, falsity of a statement may not be established solely through contradiction by the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 464, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-8-506.
ANNOTATION
Section requires testimony of two witnesses or witness plus corroboration of equal weight. In face of the positiveness of § 16-5-204, requiring at least two witnesses to the same fact to find an indictment for perjury, it would seem incongruous to prosecute and convict on less direct proof than is required to indict, and, therefore, if a conviction is to stand on the testimony of one witness and corroborating circumstances, such corroboratory proof must meet the strict requirement of quality equal to the weight of another witness. Lindsay v. People, 119 Colo. 438, 204 P.2d 878 (1949) (decided under former CSA, C. 48, § 448).
To convict one of the crime of perjury the offense must be proved by the testimony of two witnesses, or the testimony of one witness and by other independent and corroborating circumstances which are deemed of equal weight of the testimony of another witness. Marrs v. People, 135 Colo. 458, 312 P.2d 505 (1957) (decided under former § 39-3-2, CRS 53); People v. Losinki, 710 P.2d 1163 (Colo. App. 1985).
Requirements of "two-witness" rule can be satisfied by independent documentary evidence if that evidence is of sufficient weight. People v. Fueston, 717 P.2d 978 (Colo. App. 1985), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 749 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1988); People v. Ellsworth, 15 P.3d 1111 (Colo. App. 2000).