California Penal Code § 137 covers several different ways a person may improperly influence testimony or material crime information. A corrupt bribe under (a), an attempt using force, a qualifying threat or fraud under (b), and knowing actual inducement under (c) have different requirements. The useful first question is which subdivision the complaint cites—and what the complete words, conduct and chronology show. Section 137 is not a single rule that criminalizes every discussion with a potential witness.
Compare the charged subdivision
| Provision | Conduct the prosecution must address | Classification in the statute |
|---|---|---|
| § 137(a) | Giving, offering or promising a bribe to a witness, prospective witness or person about to give material crime information to law enforcement, to influence that testimony or information | Felony |
| § 137(b) | Attempting by force, a qualifying threat of force or fraud to induce false testimony or material crime information, or withholding true testimony or material information | Felony; § 1170(h) term of two, three or four years stated in this subdivision |
| § 137(c) | Knowingly inducing another person to give false testimony or material crime information, or withhold true, nonprivileged testimony or material crime information | Misdemeanor |
This table summarizes § 137(a)–(c), not the entire section. The short phrase “gives or offers, or promises to give” is an exact excerpt from (a). In this context, Penal Code § 7 defines a bribe to include a thing of value or advantage, present or prospective, or a promise of one, with corrupt intent to influence unlawfully. It need not be cash.
The current California criminal jury instructions distinguish the proof. CALCRIM No. 2610 treats (a) as a corrupt bribe-giving or offering allegation; an accepted bribe or actually altered testimony is not universally required. Nos. 2620–2621 treat (b) as an attempt, so the witness need not ultimately give false testimony or withhold the truth. Subdivision (c), by contrast, says the defendant knowingly induces the false or withheld information. Do not substitute one branch’s completed-act requirement for another branch’s attempt or offer.
For the threat branch of (b), the statutory definition requires a credible threat of unlawful injury to a person or damage to another’s property, communicated for the prohibited testimony or information purpose. Counsel should examine that purpose and the complete communication; the provision is not limited to an allegation of physical contact.
The statute’s (f) exception for an attorney advising a client or a person advising a family member expressly applies to subdivision (c). It is not a blanket exception to the bribery or force, threat and fraud branches. Likewise, this § 137 truth-influence analysis is different from an accusation of preventing a report, court appearance or cooperation under another statute. The actual charged words and conduct control which question counsel must address.
What records help clarify the allegation?
Keep the charging document, entire message thread or recording, attachments, dates, identities, any proposed thing of value and the testimony or crime information allegedly affected. If the accusation concerns a threat, preserve the complete context and what the recipient actually received. If it concerns advice, identify who gave it and the relationship without assuming that (f) resolves every count. Do not edit messages or approach a witness to reconstruct the exchange.
Section 137(a) states a felony without a particular term in that subdivision; (b) gives the stated two-, three- or four-year range under § 1170(h); and (c) is a misdemeanor. Placement, other counts and authorized dispositions can change the real sentencing analysis. The Law Offices of David S. Chesley can review an actual count, its subdivision and the underlying records with you. Contact the firm or call (800) 755-5174.