California Codes
Cal. Penal Code § 67 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person who gives or offers any bribe to any executive officer in this state, with intent to influence him in respect to any act, decision, vote, opinion, or other proceeding as such officer, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years, and is disqualified from holding any office in this state.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1947–2024 · leading case: United States v. Terry Christensen, 828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Terry Christensen, 828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2016). “The predicate acts of bribery against Pellicano were based on California Penal Code § 67, a parallel prohibition: § 67 prohibits giving bribes and § 68 prohibits receiving them.”
United States v. Terry Christensen, 801 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2015). “The predicate acts of bribery against Pellicano were based on California Penal Code § 67, a parallel prohibition: § 67 prohibits giving bribes and § 68 prohibits receiving them.”
People v. Sweeney, 357 P.2d 1049 (Cal. 1960). “Code, § 11500) and with giving a bribe to a deputy sheriff (Pen. Code, § 67). A jury convicted him of both offenses and he was sentenced to the state prison.”
Read v. City of Lynwood, 173 Cal. App. 3d 437 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985). “Code, §§ 1090, 1097, 8920), corrupt misconduct in office (Gov. Code, § 3060), and commission of certain crimes while acting in an official capacity (Gov.”
People v. Guillory, 80 A.L.R. 2d 1077 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960). “1 Pen. Code, § 67: “Every person who gives or offers any bribe to any executive officer in this State, with intent to influence him in respect to any act, decision, vote, opinion, or other proceeding as such officer, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less…”
People v. Canard, 257 Cal. App. 2d 444 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967). “—In an indictment returned by the grand jury, Peter Stafford and Henry De Maddalena, Los Angeles police officers, together with Emmett Canard, Cyril Myers, George Miller and Maury Adler, were charged with conspiracy to offer and give bribes to executive officers of the State of…”
People v. Wolden, 255 Cal. App. 2d 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967). “Code, §§ 31, 971) do not operate to subject either to prosecution under the section proscribing the act of the other, and neither falls within the code definition of an accomplice as to the act of the other (id.”
People v. Nguyen, 60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 773 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “(Pen. Code, § 67.) The detectives testified at trial.”
People v. Goree, 240 Cal. App. 2d 304 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966). “(Pen. Code, §67.) The. issue of entrapment had been tried to the jury.”
In re Hayes, 451 P.2d 430 (Cal. 1969). “, the familiar statutory provision that a crime is punishable by imprisonment, fine, or both). The Legislature could also, -if it saw fit to do so, expressly command or authorize multiple sentences for a group of crimes, however closely they might be related.”
Wong v. State Bar, 542 P.2d 642 (Cal. 1975). “As a result of his activities petitioner was indicted by the Los Angeles County Grand Jury on two counts of bribery of a police officer (Pen. Code, § 67), one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and gambling (Pen.”
People v. Skaggs, 181 P.2d 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947). “appellant that there is ample evidence to show that he feigned complicity in a bribe agreement, accepted the $500 and permitted Petillo to believe that he intended to use the money to protect him from the impending prosecution for his alleged assault upon the marines, all for…”
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.