People v. Wahidi
222 Cal. App. 4th 802
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Abdullah Wahidi was charged with multiple offenses after a February 28, 2011 parking-lot altercation: four counts of assault with a deadly weapon, felony vandalism, misdemeanor battery, and attempting to dissuade a witness (Pen. Code § 136.1). He waived a jury and proceeded to a court trial.
- On Feb. 28 Wahidi punched one of the victim’s friends and used a baseball bat to break windows of the victim Khan’s car while at least one friend sat inside.
- On September 25, 2011 — the day before Khan’s preliminary hearing — Wahidi approached Khan after mosque services, apologized, and asked to “settle this outside the court in a more Muslim manner family to family,” which Khan understood as a request not to testify. Wahidi did not threaten Khan or demand he refrain from testifying.
- Khan reported the conversation to the prosecutor the next day; Wahidi testified denying intent to dissuade Khan from testifying.
- The trial court convicted Wahidi of one count of assault with a deadly weapon and felony vandalism, and found he had attempted to dissuade Khan from testifying (but not by force), treating that count as a misdemeanor; other counts were resolved not guilty. Sentenced to an aggregate two-year term and ordered restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports conviction for attempting to dissuade a witness (Pen. Code § 136.1(a)(2)) | The conversation at the mosque, its timing (day before preliminary hearing), Wahidi’s presence at that mosque for first time, and Khan’s understanding that Wahidi sought to avoid court show Wahidi knowingly and maliciously attempted to dissuade Khan from testifying. | Wahidi admitted proposing an informal, religious-family settlement but argued that requesting settlement under Muslim custom was not evidence of intent to circumvent legal process or to persuade Khan not to testify. | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports a knowing and malicious attempt to dissuade under §136.1(a)(2). The court found the argument to settle by family means amounted to intent to interfere with orderly administration of justice (malice). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Young, 34 Cal.4th 1149 (136.1 is a specific-intent crime)
- People v. McDaniel, 22 Cal.App.4th 278 (acts must be intended to affect or influence witness testimony)
- People v. Mendoza, 59 Cal.App.4th 1333 (context of statements relevant to dissuasion inquiry)
- People v. Ford, 145 Cal.App.3d 985 (ambiguous statements may suffice if reasonably interpreted as intent to dissuade)
- State Office of Inspector General v. Superior Court, 189 Cal.App.4th 695 (statutory interpretation cautions against rendering words superfluous)
- Guillen v. Schwarzenegger, 147 Cal.App.4th 929 (courts avoid constructions that add/subtract statutory language)
- Babalola v. Superior Court, 192 Cal.App.4th 948 (background on statutory revision of witness-intimidation law)
- Khan v. Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System, 187 Cal.App.4th 98 (use of committee materials to ascertain legislative intent)
- Baker v. American Horticulture Supply, Inc., 186 Cal.App.4th 1059 (legislative history may include bill analyses)