Fri. Apr 19th, 2024

California Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

Can Police Lye on Affidavits  – Short Answer, NO!

Not if they Value their Career & Freedom and Don’t want civil responsibility

Police have no expectation of privacy on phone calls.  Police lines are recorded expectations end there!



California Penal Code 134 PC makes it a crime to prepare false evidence with the intent to use it fraudulently in a legal proceeding. This offense is a felony that carries a penalty of up to 3 years in jail or state prison.

This is considered to be an obstruction of justice crime in California.

The language of 134 PC states that “every person guilty of preparing any false or ante-dated book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, with intent to produce it, or allow it to be produced for any fraudulent or deceitful purpose, as genuine or true, upon any trial, proceeding, or inquiry whatever, authorized by law, is guilty of a felony.”


  • making a false receipt with the idea to introduce it at a personal injury trial.
  • creating an inaccurate picture of an intersection to give to law enforcement officers investigating a hit and run case.
  • altering a will with the intent to use it in probate court.


An accused can beat a preparing false evidence charge with a legal defense. Common defenses include:

  • no intent to produce,
  • no intent to deceive, and/or
  • entrapment.


A violation of this statute is charged as a felony offense. This is opposed to a misdemeanor or an infraction.

The crime is punishable by:

Our California criminal defense attorneys will address the following in this article:

1. When is preparing false evidence a crime?

A prosecutor must prove the following to convict a defendant of Penal Code 134:

  1. the defendant prepared a false or forged “matter or thing,”
  2. he did so with the intent to produce it as evidence in a legal proceeding, and
  3. the accused did so with the intent to deceive.1

Note that this statute lists some examples of evidence that a defendant could falsify. These are:

“any false or ante-dated book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing.”2

By including the wording, “matter or thing,” the law makes it a crime for someone to:

  • prepare any kind,
  • of false evidence.

A “matter or thing” could include such evidence as:

  • photos,
  • weapons,
  • maps, and
  • clothing items.

Note that a legal proceeding includes:

  • civil and criminal trials,
  • hearings,
  • inquiries, and
  • investigations.

Questions often arise under this statute on the meaning of:

  1. intent to produce, and
  2. intent to deceive.

1.1. Intent to produce

A defendant is only guilty under this statute if he:

  1. prepares false evidence, and
  2. does so with the intent to produce it in a legal proceeding.3

Note that it is not necessary for the evidence actually to be produced.

This means someone can be accused of this crime if the evidence was:

  • never used in a legal matter, or
  • was introduced into court but by someone else.

Example: Scott is in a nasty divorce with his wife. As their trial nears, Scott alters several emails to show that his wife is an alcoholic and should not get custody of their son. He wants to use them as evidence during the court proceeding. The spouses end up settling their case two days before the trial.

Here, Scott is guilty of preparing false evidence because he altered emails. While the emails were never introduced into evidence, Scott intended to produce them during trial.

1.2. Intent to deceive

A defendant is only guilty under PC 134 if:

  • he intended to produce false evidence,
  • for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose.4

“For a fraudulent purpose” means that an accused must have acted:

  • with the intent to deceive, or fool, someone
  • with the false evidence.5

Example: Mary is the plaintiff in a personal injury case. She completes a document (late one night) that shows the total amount of money she has spent on rehabbing her injury. Unbeknownst to her, Mary makes several calculation errors because she is tired and careless. Mary brings the document to court the next morning intending to give it to the judge.

Here, Mary is not guilty of preparing false evidence. The document is technically false because it includes erroneous figures and rehab charges. But Mary did not have an intent to deceive in making her document. She merely “falsified” the document out of carelessness and mistake.

2. Are there legal defenses to Penal Code 134?

A defendant can challenge an accusation under this statute with a legal defense.

Three common defenses are:

  1. no intent to produce,
  2. no intent to deceive, and/or
  3. entrapment.

2.1. No intent to produce (“lack of intent”)

Recall that a person is only guilty under this statute if he:

  1. prepares false evidence, and
  2. does so with the intent to produce it in a legal proceeding.

This means it is a defense for an accused to say that he did not act with this requisite intent.

2.2. No intent to deceive

A defendant is only guilty under Penal Code 134 if he:

  • prepared false evidence, and
  • did so with the intent to deceive or fool someone else.

Therefore, it is a valid defense for a defendant to say that he did not act with this intent. Perhaps, for example, a piece of evidence was falsified by mistake or accident.

2.3. Entrapment

Police officers cannot lure suspects into committing a crime. This “luring” is known as entrapment. It applies to overbearing official conduct like pressure, harassment, fraud, or threats. Entrapment is an acceptable legal defense provided that the accused shows he only committed the crime because of the entrapment.

(Note that in some cases, defense attorneys uncover evidence that corrupt cops were planting evidence.)

3. What are the penalties?

A violation of these laws is charged as a felony.

The crime is punishable by:

  • custody in state prison for up to three years, or
  • felony (or formal) probation.6

4. Are there immigration consequences?

A preparing false evidence conviction will have negative immigration consequences.

A California court has ruled that an offense involving false evidence is a crime involving moral turpitude.7

Crimes involving moral turpitude” can result in a non-citizen being either:

This means an offense under PC 134 will have detrimental immigration results.

5. Can a person get a conviction expunged?

A person might be able to get a conviction expunged.

Defendants cannot get an expungement for a crime if they get sentenced to state prison.8 This means a defendant will not be able to get an expungement:

  • for a preparing false evidence offense
  • if they get a prison sentence.

But they might be able to get an expungement of the criminal case if they get awarded felony probation in lieu of prison time.

6. Does a conviction affect gun rights?

A defendant will lose his gun rights if he gets convicted under this statute.

convicted felon is prohibited from buying or owning a gun under California law.

Since preparing false evidence is a felony, a conviction of this crime will result in a loss of gun rights.

7. Are there related offenses?

There are three crimes related to preparing false evidence. These are:

  1. offering false evidence – PC 132,
  2. perjury – PC 118, and
  3. destroying or concealing evidence – PC 135.

7.1. Offering false evidence – PC 132

Penal Code 132 PC is the California statute that makes it a crime for a person to offer false written evidence in a legal proceeding.

This is a much narrower law than Penal Code 134 and it only applies to written evidence/false documents.

7.2. Perjury – PC 118

Per Penal Code 118 PC, perjury is the California crime of deliberately giving false information while under oath.

Unlike PC 134, this law applies to actual testimony given in a legal proceeding.

7.3. Destroying evidence or concealing false evidence – PC 135

Penal Code 135 PC is the California statute that makes it a crime for a person to:

  • willfully destroy or hide any evidence,
  • in a legal proceeding.

“Legal proceeding” here has the same meaning as used with preparing false evidence.

For additional help…

For legal advice and to discuss your case with a DUI/criminal defense attorney, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group. Our Los Angeles, California criminal defense lawyers serve clients throughout the state, including San Bernardino, San Diego, Riverside, Newport Beach, and more.

Legal References:

  1. California Penal Code section 134 PC. See, for example: People v. Shah (Cal. App. 3d Dist., 2019), 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 477People v. Morrison (Cal. App. 2d Dist., 2011), 191 Cal. App. 4th 1551.
  2. See same.
  3. See same. See also People v. Brown (1887) 74 Cal. 306; and, People v. Horowitz (1945) 70 Cal. App. 2d 675.
  4. California Penal Code 134 PC.
  5. See People v. Brown, supra; and People v. Horowitz, supra.
  6. California Penal Code 132 PC. See also California Penal Code 1170h.
  7. In re Jones (1971), 5 Cal. 3d 390.
  8. California Penal Code 1203.4 PC.





To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links Below 

Abuse & Neglect The Reporters  (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)

If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting Law Click Here

To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect Reporting Act – California Penal Code 11164-11166 Article 2.5. (CANRAClick Here

 Mandated Reporter form Mandated Reporter FORM SS 8572.pdfThe Child Abuse


It Only Takes a Minute to Make a Difference in the Life of a Child learn more below

You can learn more here California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law  its a PDF files taken from

Learn More About True Threats Here below….

We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)1st Amendment

CURRENT TEST = We also have the TheBrandenburg testfor incitement to violence 1st Amendment

We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test 1st Amendment

We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment

We also have the Watts v. United StatesTrue Threat Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment

Learn More About What is Obscene…. be careful about education it may enlighten you

We also have the Miller v. California 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment

We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment

Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….

$$ Retaliatory Arrests and Prosecution $$

We also have the Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee1st Amendment Posting Police Address

We also have the Publius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment Posting Police Address

We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019)1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006)1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims
Against Government Officials1st Amendment

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims
Against Government Officials1st Amendment

We also have the Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment

We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – Letters to Politicians Homes – 1st Amendment

We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive 1st Amendment


We also have the Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

We also have the Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

We also have the Penal Code 132 PCOffering False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 134 PCPreparing False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 118.1 PCPolice Officer$ Filing False Report$

We also have the Spencer v. PetersPolice Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

We also have the Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California

We also have the Penal Code 115 PCFiling a False Document in California

Sanctions and Attorney Fee Recovery for Bad Actors

FAM § 3027.1 – Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions For False Child Abuse AllegationsFamily Code 3027.1 – Click Here

FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees– Family Code 271 Family Court Sanction Click Here

Awarding Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases – Click Here

FAM § 2030 – Bringing Fairness & Fee RecoveryClick Here

 Know Your Rights Click Here (must read!)

 Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

$ection 1983 LawsuitHow to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

18 U.S. Code § 242Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241Conspiracy against Right$

$uing for MisconductKnow More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in CaliforniaHow to Bring a Lawsuit

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!

New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police



We also have the 9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) — 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the  Amdt5. – Parental and Children’s Rights 5th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the 9.32 Interference with Parent / Child Relationship – 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the California Civil Code Section 52.1 Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights

We also have the Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights SCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS

We also have a SEARCH of our site for all articles relating for PARENTS RIGHTS Help!


Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)Grandparents – 14th Amendment

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights

Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf


Due Process vs Substantive Due Process learn more HERE

Understanding Due Process  – This clause caused over 200 overturns in just DNA alone  Click Here

Mathews v. EldridgeDue Process – 5th & 14th Amendment Mathews Test3 Part TestAmdt5. Mathews Test

UnfriendingEvidence – 5th Amendment

At the Intersection of Technology and Law

We also have the Introducing TEXT & EMAIL Digital Evidence in California Courts  1st Amendment

Retrieving Evidence / Internal Investigation Case 

Fighting Discovery Abuse in LitigationForensic & Investigative AccountingClick Here

Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the Orange County District Attorney OCDAClick Here

Orange County Data, BodyCam, Police Report, Incident Reports, and all other available known requests for data below: 


Learn About Policy 814: Discovery Requests OCDA Office – Click Here

Request for Proof In-Custody Form Click Here

Request for Clearance Letter Form Click Here

Application to Obtain Copy of State Summary of Criminal HistoryForm Click Here

Request Authorization FormRelease of Case InformationClick Here

CPRA Public Records Act Data Request – Click Here

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

Appealing/Contesting Case/Order/Judgment/Charge/ Suppressing Evidence

First Things First: What Can Be Appealed and What it Takes to Get StartedClick Here

Options to Appealing– Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation 

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Motion to Reconsider

Penal Code 1385Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Penal Code 1538.5Motion To Suppress Evidence in a California Criminal Case

CACI No. 1501 – Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings

Penal Code “995 Motions” in California –  Motion to Dismiss

WIC § 700.1If Court Grants Motion to Suppress as Evidence

Suppression Of Exculpatory Evidence / Presentation Of False Or Misleading Evidence – Click Here

Notice of Appeal Felony (Defendant) (CR-120)  1237, 1237.5, 1538.5(m) – Click Here

 Epic Criminal / Civil Right$ SCOTUS Help Click Here

At issue in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey (1972) was whether a conviction under state law prohibiting profane language in a public place violated a man's First Amendment's protection of free speech. The Supreme Court vacated the man's conviction and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its recent rulings about fighting words. The man had used profane language at a public school board meeting. (Illustration via Pixabay, public domain) Epic Parents SCOTUS Ruling Parental Right$ Help Click Here

Judge’s & Prosecutor’s Jurisdiction – SCOTUS RULINGS on Judicial & Prosecutorial Conduct



Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards

Download Here this Recommended Citation

Please take time to learn new UPCOMING 

The PROPOSED Parental Rights Amendment
to the US CONSTITUTION Click Here to visit their site

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will specifically add parental rights in the text of the U.S. Constitution, protecting these rights for both current and future generations.

The Parental Rights Amendment is currently in the U.S. Senate, and is being introduced in the U.S. House.