## Facts

- A professional drag racer’s race car and equipment valued at about $120,000 were stolen, and the owner offered a reward for information.
- A codefendant was arrested after attempting to sell a component of the stolen property at a suspiciously low price.
- After the arrest, the victim negotiated for the return of the stolen property by offering money.
- An anonymous caller demanded that, in addition to payment, the victim sign a pledge not to prosecute.
- The victim met with Dean Richard Pic’l, an attorney, while law enforcement monitored the conversation.
- Pic’l presented a written agreement requiring the victim to pay money and to take steps to thwart criminal prosecution, including seeking dismissal of charges and refusing to participate if prosecution continued.
- After the victim signed and paid a portion of the demanded amount to Pic’l, Pic’l led him to the location of the stolen property, where police arrested Pic’l and others.
- A grand jury indicted Pic’l on six felonies, including counts for bribing a witness not to attend trial, bribing a witness to withhold testimony, and compounding a felony.
- The trial court granted a Penal Code § 995 motion to set aside those three counts for lack of reasonable or probable cause; the People appealed that partial dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether the grand jury record showed reasonable or probable cause to indict Pic’l for bribing a witness not to attend trial (Cal. Penal Code § 136½) and bribing a witness to withhold testimony (Cal. Penal Code § 137).
2. Whether the grand jury record showed reasonable or probable cause to indict Pic’l for compounding a felony (Cal. Penal Code § 153).
3. Whether the superior court properly set aside those counts under Penal Code § 995 based on insufficiency of the evidence at the indictment stage.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the order setting aside counts III, IV, and V.
- The Court held the superior court erred because the grand jury record contained evidence supporting each element of the dismissed offenses under the probable-cause standard.
- The Court reinstated the counts for bribery of a witness not to attend trial, bribery of a witness to withhold testimony, and compounding a felony, and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A Penal Code § 995 motion tests whether the grand jury record shows “reasonable or probable cause” to believe the defendant committed the charged offenses; it does not decide guilt.
- At the indictment stage, courts do not resolve credibility disputes or weigh competing inferences; evidence is viewed in the manner most supportive of the indictment.
- Witness-bribery statutes (Cal. Penal Code §§ 136½, 137) may be satisfied where a benefit is offered or paid to induce a prospective complainant or potential witness to withdraw cooperation, refuse to testify, or otherwise impede prosecution.
- Compounding a felony (Cal. Penal Code § 153) encompasses agreements to accept consideration in exchange for concealing a felony or abstaining from, or impeding, prosecution, including bargains conditioned on a victim’s promise not to prosecute or participate.
- An attorney’s professional role in drafting or presenting such an agreement does not immunize the attorney from criminal liability where the agreement can be viewed as purchasing noncooperation with prosecution.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the indictment counts, holding that the grand jury evidence—particularly an agreement tying payment and return of stolen property to promises to avoid prosecution and withhold cooperation—supplied probable cause for witness bribery and compounding a felony, making dismissal under § 995 improper.


People v. Pic'l, 31 Cal. 3d 731, 646 P.2d 847 (Cal. 1982)