546 P.3d 564
Cal.2024Background
- Defendant Reynoza was convicted under Penal Code section 136.1(b)(2) for attempting to dissuade a witness from cooperating in the prosecution of a case against his brother, after criminal charges had already been filed.
- The conduct in question occurred after the charging document in the underlying case was filed, outside a San Jose bar, leading to a fatal altercation.
- The prosecution's theory was that post-filing attempts to dissuade a witness from assisting in prosecution fall under section 136.1(b)(2).
- Defendant argued, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that the statute requires the dissuasion attempt to be tied to causing a complaint to be filed, so post-filing conduct is not covered.
- The Supreme Court granted review to resolve conflicting interpretations of whether the statute’s "and" should be read conjunctively (requiring both elements) or disjunctively (allowing for either element).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Reynoza) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does section 136.1(b)(2) criminalize dissuasion from "assisting in the prosecution" after charges are filed? | The “and” in statute means “or”; statute covers conduct occurring both before and after charges are filed, so post-filing dissuasion qualifies. | The “and” is conjunctive; a conviction requires proof the defendant tried to prevent both the filing of charges and assisting prosecution, so post-filing acts alone are not covered. | The statute is ambiguous; applying rule of lenity, “and” is interpreted conjunctively. Solely post-filing dissuasion is not covered by section 136.1(b)(2); conviction reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pool, 27 Cal. 572 (Cal. 1865) (courts may read statutory "and" as "or" in certain circumstances)
- People v. Avery, 27 Cal.4th 49 (Cal. 2002) (rule of lenity applies where penal statute is ambiguous)
- In re C.H., 53 Cal.4th 94 (Cal. 2011) (discussing usage of "and" as conjunctive or disjunctive in statutes)
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (Cal. 2008) (standards for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Brown, 6 Cal.App.5th 1074 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (previous interpretation of section 136.1(b)(2) as conjunctive)