People v. Reynoza

• Docket Number: S273797
• Decision Date: 22 April 2024
• Citation: 546 P.3d 564,320 Cal.Rptr.3d 299
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Raymond Gregory REYNOZA, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Supreme Court

546 P.3d 564

320 Cal.Rptr.3d 299

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Raymond Gregory REYNOZA, Defendant and Appellant.

S273797

Supreme Court of California.

April 22, 2024

Sixth Appellate District, H047594, Santa Clara County Superior Court, C1775222, Charles E. Wilson II, Judge

Nancy Susan Brandt, Albany, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine A. Rivlin, Seth K. Schalit, Bruce M. Slavin and Katie L. Stowe, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.

We granted review in this case to interpret a witness dissuasion statute. Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (b)(2) makes it a crime to attempt to dissuade a victim or witness from "[c]ausing a complaint … to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting in the prosecution thereof."¹ (Italics added.) A jury found defendant Raymond Gregory Reynoza guilty of violating this statute based on actions that occurred entirely after the complaint in the underlying criminal case had been filed.

The question before us is whether section 136.1(b)(2) supports this disjunctive interpretation — in which the statute independently applies where a defendant dissuades a witness from "assisting in the prosecution" of a case after the charging document has already been filed — or whether a conjunctive interpretation precludes a conviction under such circumstances. On the one hand, the word "and," which joins the subject clauses of section 136.1(b)(2), is ordinarily used as a conjunction (In re C.H. (2011) 53 Cal.4th 94, 101, 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 573, 264 P.3d 357). On the other hand, the word "and" also "is sometimes, in a fair and rational construction of a statute, to be read as if it were or, and taken disjunctively" (People v. Pool (1865) 27 Cal. 572, 581 (Pool)), which would lead us to apply section 136.1(b)(2) to situations where a defendant dissuades a witness from "assisting in the prosecution" of a case only after a charging document has already been filed.

After considering the text, statutory context, legislative history, and the experiences of other jurisdictions when faced with similar statutory language, we conclude that section 136.1(b)(2) is equally susceptible to both the conjunctive and disjunctive constructions. Accordingly, the rule of lenity counsels in favor of adopting the "interpretation more favorable to the defendant." (People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 57, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 403, 38 P.3d 1 (Avery).) Here, that is the conjunctive construction, which does not permit a conviction to be based solely on proof of dissuasion from "assisting in the prosecution" of an already-filed charging document.

Because there is no dispute that defendant’s conduct amounted to, at most, dissuasion after a complaint was filed, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal reversing his conviction.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant and two others (Guillermo Cervantes and Cesar Chavez) were charged with murder (§ 187) and dissuading a witness (§ 136.1(b)(2))² with allegations that the dissuasion was "accompanied by force" (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)) and done "in furtherance of a conspiracy" (id., subd. (c)(2)). The prosecution’s theory was that defendant was trying to dissuade a witness, Rafael Cornejo, in a criminal case against defendant’s brother, Francisco Rosales. We briefly summarize the underlying criminal case involving defendant’s brother, and the instant case of witness dissuasion.

In February 2017, Gilroy police arrested Rosales, Cornejo, and Benjamin Valladares after finding an unregistered firearm in their vehicle. In April, Rosales, Cornejo, and Valladares were charged with misdemeanor possession of a firearm. Valladares was also charged with one felony count of assault with a firearm and one misdemeanor count of causing a firearm to be carried in a vehicle. Between April and June, these three defendants made several appearances at the Morgan Hill courthouse — including on June 15, when one of the defendants in this witness dissuasion case (Cesar Chavez) and his brother (Gilbert Chavez) attended despite not having any business before the court.

The charged witness dissuasion in this case occurred one week later outside a bar in San Jose. Cornejo and Valladares were drinking in the bar when the manager warned Valladares that a group of men were outside. The manager gave this warning because there had been an incident at the bar a few weeks earlier involving Valladares and one of the men outside. When Valladares went outside to see if everything was all right, someone asked him, "Where’s your bitch-ass uncle at?" (Valladares considered Cornejo to be his uncle.) Valladares went back inside and told Cornejo not to go outside but Cornejo disregarded the warning.

The group outside — which included defendant, Chavez (who had gone to the Morgan Hill courthouse the week before), and Cervantes — approached Cornejo in the parking lot. A bouncer at the bar who had approached the men heard someone say "[d]rop the charges" and "it will be all good" or "[y]ou have nothing to worry about." Valladares then heal’d a member of defendant’s group say, "[W]e don’t fuck with snitches." Cervantes then punched Cornejo once in the head. Cornejo fell to the ground, struck his head on the pavement, and died hours later from blunt force trauma to the head and acute alcohol intoxication.

The jury found defendant not guilty of murder and guilty of witness dissuasion, found the dissuasion in furtherance of a conspiracy allegation true, and found the dissuasion accompanied by force allegation not true. The trial court sentenced defendant to two years in prison, which the court deemed satisfied by defendant’s presentence custody credits, and placed him on parole for three years.

Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and the jury’s true finding on the conspiracy allegation. He argued that section 136.1(b)(2) "includes two elements, first, that the witness is being dissuaded from ‘[c]ausing a complaint … to be sought and prosecuted’ and second, ‘assisting in the prosecution thereof.’ " (Boldface omitted.) He maintained the evidence was insufficient to support either ostensible element. As to the first ostensible element, defendant argued "[t]here was no substantial evidence supporting the theory that Cornejo was going to ‘cause’ any criminal actions to be sought in [the Morgan Hill] case" because "charges were already brought in that case, and several court appearances had already taken place" by the time of the incident leading to Cornejo’s death. Thus, according to defendant, there was an "impossibility of meeting the first element." (Boldface omitted.)

The Court of Appeal agreed that section 136.1(b)(2) requires proof that the defendant attempted to prevent or dissuade another person from causing an accusatory pleading to be filed. (People v. Reynoza (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 181, 189, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 376 (Reynoza).)³ The court explained that "section 136.1(b)(2) requires proof that, among other things, the defendant attempted to prevent or dissuade another person from causing a complaint, indictment, information, probation or parole violation to be filed. If the defendant was aware the relevant charging document had already been filed, and the defendant did not attempt to prevent or dissuade the filing of any amended or subsequent charging document, the defendant has not violated section 136.1(b)(2)." (Reynoza, at p. 189, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 376.) The court further explained that "[o]ther statutory provisions prohibit attempts to dissuade victims or witnesses where charges have already been filed." (Ibid., citing §§ 136.1, subd. (a)(1) & (2) [dissuasion of a witness from testifying or attending trial], 137, subd. (c) [attempting to influence testimony or information given to law enforcement].)

In so holding, the Reynoza court expressly disagreed with People v. Velazquez (2011) 201 CaI.App.4th 219, 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 684 (Velazquez), which stated that section 136.1(b)(2) "clearly encompasses more than prearrest efforts to dissuade, inasmuch as it includes attempts to dissuade a victim from causing a complaint … to be prosecuted or assisting in that prosecution." (Velazquez, at p. 233, 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 684, italics added.)

We granted review to determine whether section 136.1(b)(2) requires proof of an attempt to dissuade a witness from causing a charging document to be sought and prosecuted — as the court below held — or whether the statute also independently applies where a defendant dissuades a witness only from "assisting in the prosecution" of a case after the charging document has already been filed.

II. DISCUSSION

[1–6] The Attorney General contends the Court of Appeal erred in reversing defendant’s conviction on the basis of insufficient evidence. Although we ordinarily review such challenges under the deferential substantial evidence standard (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 289, 181 P.3d 105), because the Court of Appeal’s ruling is based on the interpretation of section 136.1(b)(2), we review that legal determination de novo (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961, 281 Cal.Rptr.3d 521, 491 P.3d 309). " ‘When we interpret a statute, "[o]ur fundamental task … is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose. We first examine the statutory language, giving it a plain and commonsense meaning. … If the language is clear, courts must generally follow its plain meaning unless a literal interpretation would result in absurd consequences the Legislature did not intend. If the statutory language permits more than one reasonable interpretation, courts may consider other aids, such as the statute’s purpose, legislative history, and public policy." [Citation.] "Furthermore, we...