Although Kyle’s attorney was correct that when a special statute applies it must be used instead of a general statute, in this case the Court of Appeal found that the statutes were aimed at different things. The crime of procuring false testimony will not commonly prevent prosecution of an offense. The crime of which Kyle was convicted was attempting to prevent a prosecution by threat of force or violence. Although the two statutes seem similar, by closely analyzing the elements of each crime, the Court found them to be very different.
Procuring false testimony can involve any witness, whereas attempting to prevent prosecution is directed at the victim of the crime who can instigate the prosecution.
Procuring false testimony also would include any kind of false testimony, but attempting to prevent prosecution only includes attempts to exculpate an accused.
Procuring false testimony only occurs after charges are filed, whereas attempting to prevent prosecution occurs before the charges are filed.
Accordingly, the statutes were sufficiently different so that one statute did not swallow the other. Kyle was correctly convicted of attempting to prevent prosecution for his crimes against Becky.
Kyle’s interest in distinguishing his offense from the one charged was that attempting to prevent prosecution is defined as a serious crime, whereas procuring false testimony is not. Because he had two prior serious felony convictions, he was looking at a 35 year to life sentence, which he received. Had he been successful in his appeal, his maximum sentence would have been four years. Threatening Becky before charges were filed gave him 31 extra years to think about popping her tires.
People v. Brown, decided December 20, 2016
These are real appellate court cases that boil down to a specific Burning Legal Question. The dialogue is my conception of what the attorneys might have said, not necessarily the actual arguments. At the end of each case there is a link to the Smoldering Legal Answer - what the judges actually decided.
