What is the test for an allegation of perverting the course of justice under section 136.1 of the California Criminal Code?

In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we examine the entire record and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment to determine whether there is reasonable and credible evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 241.) We do not redetermine the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. (People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60.) And we must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the evidence even if we would have concluded otherwise. (Streeter, supra, at p. 241.)

"Section 136.1 criminalizes trying to dissuade a victim from reporting a crime." (People v. Upsher (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1320.) "To prove a violation of section 136.1, subdivision (b)(1), the prosecution must show (1) the defendant has attempted to prevent or dissuade a person (2) who is a victim or witness to a crime (3) from making any report of his or her victimization to any peace officer or other designated officials. Section 136.1, subdivision (b)(1) does not require that the defendant act knowingly and maliciously. (People v. McElroy[ (2005)] 126 Cal.App.4th [874,] 881.)"³ (Ibid.) The prosecution must also prove "the defendant's acts or statements [were] intended to affect or influence a potential witness's or victim's testimony or acts ...." (People v. McDaniel (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 278, 284.) Intent is rarely shown

Page 8

by direct proof and "generally must be established by circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences to which it gives rise." (People v. Buckley (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 489, 494-495.)