Defendant Marlon Lamont Ford has faced two probation violation hearings in this action. In the first hearing, the trial court ruled defendant was not in violation of probation, having resolved credibility issues in defendant's favor. The second probation violation hearing was based on the allegation defendant had committed perjury (Pen. Code, § 118)[1] at the first violation hearing in answering the prosecutor's questions pertaining to two prior arrests. The trial court found defendant had committed perjury at the first hearing and revoked probation. Probation was reinstated on the condition defendant serve 180 days in county jail. Defendant contends in this appeal that there was legally insufficient evidence of perjury to support a probation violation. We agree and reverse.