We've got a false sworn material statement made by a crook which is almost 3 years old. Art. 12.03 worries me a bit since it says that any "aggravated" offense carries the same limitation as the primary offense (2 years for misd. perjury) except as otherwise provided by Chapter 12. Of course, Art. 12.01 says "all other felonies" have a 3 year S/L. Is the S/L re agg perjury 3 years or 2 years? Also, if you have 2 inconsistent sworn material statements which are prosecutable pursuant to PC Section 37.06, would the S/L begin to run from the first statement or the second statement? I'm thinking the date of the second statement would apply since you really don't have a 37.06 offense until the 2nd statement is made. Any advice, help, or case law would be much appreciated. I was planning on presenting this matter to a grand jury today and then ran across this possible problem... so I haven't researched it myself yet. Thanks again.

I was able to find the answer to my own question I think. It appears that agg perjury pursuant to 37.03 is indeed 2 years but a PC 37.06 S/L doesn't begin to run until the 2nd inconsistent statement is made. This apparently means that the 1st inconsistent statement can be over 2 years old but a 37.06 prosecution can still be indicted within the S/L if the 2nd statement was made less than 2 years prior to indictment. I've got the cases if anyone is interested. Sorry for any inconvenience my post may have caused but I didn't know that I would have time to do the research. Thanks.

I had to argue this issue in front of the CCA where I kind of felt they kind of dodged the issue in Ex parte Tamez, 38 S.W.3d 159. It certainly seemed to me at the time that the statute of limitations should run from the second statement.

I have always liked that SOL argument. Under that definition of the offense, it isn't complete until the second statement is made. Otherwise, limitations would run before you ever did anything wrong.

Right, it always made sense to me on a gut level, but it does assume that 37.06 creates a whole nother perjury offense. If you look at 37.06 as more like a presumption that relieves the State of its burden to show the falsity of a statement then you get into some weird mental gymnastics.