People v. Brown
6 Cal. App. 5th 1074
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Kyle Brown and Rebekka Chartier (mother of his children) had a restraining order in effect; after a breakup Brown damaged Chartier’s car tires with a knife and later called her, threatening to "take [her] life" unless she recanted to police. Chartier reported both incidents to 911.
- Brown was tried by jury and convicted of: witness intimidation (Pen. Code §136.1(c)(1)) — a serious felony; vandalism (Pen. Code §594(b)(2)(A)) — misdemeanor; and two misdemeanor violations of a court order (Pen. Code §166(a)(4)).
- In a bench phase, the court found multiple prior strikes and enhancements true, but struck two of three prior prison-term enhancements as duplicative of serious-felony priors; the remaining enhancements contributed to an aggregate sentence of 35 years to life.
- Brown argued on appeal that his conduct should have been prosecuted (or at least the jury instructed) under Penal Code §137 (inducing false testimony/information) rather than §136.1, invoking the general-versus-special statute rule, equal protection, and instructional error.
- The appellate court found substantial evidence supporting conviction under §136.1(c)(1), rejected the general-vs.-special and equal protection arguments, and held the trial court permissibly refused an instruction on §137; but it ordered one remaining §667.5(b) prior prison-term enhancement stricken because it had been improperly imposed concurrently.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Brown’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §137 (inducing falsehood) is the special statute precluding prosecution under §136.1 (general) for the same conduct | Prosecutor argued the conduct fit §136.1(b)(2)/(c)(1) (attempt to prevent prosecution by force) and §137 does not commonly subsume that offense | Brown argued §137 specifically targets influencing the content of information and thus §136.1 (general) is precluded by the special statute | Court held §137(c) does not commonly constitute §136.1(b)(2); prosecution under §136.1 was proper and supported by evidence |
| Whether prosecuting under §136.1 rather than §137 violated equal protection | Charging decision was a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion and not arbitrary | Brown argued disparate punishments (much harsher under §136.1 serious-felony enhancement) violated equal protection | Court rejected equal protection claim — no showing of arbitrary, invidious selection by prosecutor |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing to instruct on §137 and by barring defense argument that Brown was guilty only under §137 | People opposed instruction; contended §137 was a lesser-related (not included) offense and court cannot give such an instruction without prosecution consent | Brown sought instruction on §137(b) and to argue he intended only to influence content of Chartier’s report | Court held §137 is a lesser-related offense; under Birks and Jennings defendant had no right to instruction on an uncharged lesser-related offense and could not compel it without prosecution consent; counsel could still argue theory without invoking uncharged law |
| Sentencing: Whether a prior prison-term enhancement was improperly imposed concurrently | People accepted enhancements as found by court (but two were struck earlier) | Brown contended the remaining §667.5(b) enhancement should be stricken or run concurrent | Court observed §667.5(b) enhancements must be consecutive; concluded the trial court would have struck it if it understood it could not run concurrent, and ordered the enhancement stricken (modifying judgment) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Murphy, 52 Cal.4th 81 (Cal. 2011) (articulates general-versus-special rule for overlapping statutes)
- People v. Wilkinson, 33 Cal.4th 821 (Cal. 2004) (prosecutor’s charging discretion between otherwise similar statutes does not, by itself, violate equal protection)
- People v. Birks, 19 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 1998) (court not required to instruct on uncharged lesser-related offenses without both parties’ consent)
- People v. Womack, 40 Cal.App.4th 926 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (forcible attempt to prevent testimony is not necessarily an attempt to induce false testimony)
- People v. Jones, 5 Cal.4th 1142 (Cal. 1993) (duplicate enhancements based on same convictions may be struck)