Cal. Codes » Penal Code / PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS / TITLE 7. OF CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE / CHAPTER 6. Falsifying Evidence, and Bribing, Influencing, Intimidating or Threatening Witnesses
California Codes

Cal. Penal Code § 135 (2026)

Falsifying Evidence, and Bribing, Influencing, Intimidating or Threatening Witnesses

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A person who, knowing that any book, paper, record, instrument in writing, digital image, video recording owned by another, or other matter or thing, is about to be produced in evidence upon a trial, inquiry, or investigation, authorized by law, willfully destroys, erases, or conceals the same, with the intent to prevent it or its content from being produced, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: People v. Prysock, 127 Cal. App. 3d 972 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Prysock, 127 Cal. App. 3d 972 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 10× “Code, § 871); and count six, destroying evidence (Pen. Code, § 135). Mark Danley, appellant's coparticipant and also a juvenile, was found guilty of the same charges in a later trial, including the special findings and an additional charge not relevant here.”
California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981). · cites it 2× “§ 871 (West 1972), and destruction of evidence, Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 135 (West 1970). The Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District reversed respondent's convictions and ordered a new trial because of what it thought to be error under Miranda .”
Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 954 P.2d 511 (Cal. 1998). · cites it 2× “Finally, Penal Code section 135 creates criminal penalties for spoliation.”
Temple Cmty. Hosp. v. Superior Court, 976 P.2d 223 (Cal. 1999). · cites it 2× “Likewise, the criminal prohibition against the destruction of evidence, Penal Code section 135, applies only when a person destroys evidence "knowing [it] .”
Kearney v. Foley & Lardner, LLP, 590 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2009). “See Cal.Penal Code § 135; see Cedars-Sinai, 74 Cal.”
Forbes v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 101 Cal. App. 4th 48 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “(Pen. Code, § 135; Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.”
Smith v. Superior Court, 151 Cal. App. 3d 491 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). “Penal Code section 135 (section 135) states: “Every person who, knowing that any book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, is about to be produced in evidence upon any trial, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized by law, willfully destroys or…”
People v. Fields, 105 Cal. App. 3d 341 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “4 Penal Code section 135, enacted in 1872, was based on the Field Draft of the New York penal code.”
Willard v. Caterpillar, Inc., 40 Cal. App. 4th 892 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “, Pen. Code, § 135; Smith v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.”
People v. Edgar, 383 P.2d 449 (Cal. 1963). · cites it 3× “) Penal Code section 135 provides that "Every person who, knowing that any book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, is about to be produced in evidence upon any trial, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized by law, willfully destroys or…”
Hirsch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 628 A.2d 1108 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1993). “However, the circumstances of this case dictate preclusion of all evidence regarding plaintiffs' inspection of the Cadillac for the purposes of trial and summary judgment. VII. Order IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT plaintiffs (and State Farm as subrogee) are precluded from…”
Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant, 385 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (C.D. Cal. 2005). ““If any modifications are made,” the letter threatens, “you will be subject to an action for spoliation of evidence pursuant to California Penal Code § 135.” Ignoring the rather obvious points that such remedial measures are by no means spoliation of evidence, and that, in fact,…”
Show all 52 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.