California Penal Code §135 — Destroying or Concealing Evidence
PC §135 punishes anyone who, knowing that documentary or physical evidence is about to be produced in an investigation, inquiry, or trial authorized by law, willfully destroys, erases, or conceals it — with the intent to prevent it from being produced. §135 is a misdemeanor carrying up to 6 months in county jail and a fine up to $1,000. It is the workhorse California obstruction-of-justice statute for the destruction of documents, digital records, physical objects, and video / audio files.
Reviewed by Daniel S. Rubin, CA Bar 302093 · Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney · Destroying or Concealing Evidence Cases in All LA County Courts
01 — Quick Facts
PC §135 — Destroying or Concealing Evidence at a Glance
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Full Name | California Penal Code §135 — Destroying or Concealing Evidence |
| Code Type | Penal Code (PC) |
| Classification | Misdemeanor |
| Penalty | Up to 6 months county jail + fine up to $1,000 |
| Moral Turpitude | Yes — CIMT (obstruction) |
| Strike | No |
| Probation | Standard on first offense |
| Diversion | Available under PC §1001.95 (misdemeanor diversion) |
| Immigration | Deportable / inadmissible — CIMT under 8 USC §1227(a)(2)(A) |
| Federal Parallel | 18 U.S.C. §1519 (federal evidence destruction — up to 20 years) |
| Free Consultation | (213) 723-2337 — 24/7 |
01 — What Is PC §135?
What Is California Penal Code §135?
PC §135 Reads:
"A person who, knowing that any book, paper, record, instrument in writing, digital image, video recording owned by another, or other matter or thing, is about to be produced in evidence upon a trial, inquiry, or investigation, authorized by law, willfully destroys, erases, or conceals the same, with the intent to prevent it or its content from being produced, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
— California Penal Code §135
PC §135 criminalizes the willful destruction, erasure, or concealment of evidence — books, papers, records, writings, digital images, video recordings, or 'other matter or thing' — that the actor knows is about to be produced in a trial, inquiry, or investigation authorized by law, done with the intent to prevent its production.
§135 vs §141
§135 punishes destroying, erasing, or concealing evidence to prevent its production. §141 punishes affirmative tampering — planting, altering, manufacturing — to cause a person to be charged or to produce false evidence. The two statutes are complementary: §135 covers suppression; §141 covers fabrication.
PC §135 — Destroying Evidence
Misdemeanor. Suppressing evidence to prevent its production. Up to 6 months county jail + $1,000 fine.
PC §141(a) — Tampering / Planting
Misdemeanor for civilians / felony for peace officers. Affirmative fabrication or alteration.
Why §135 Matters
Although §135 is a misdemeanor, it is a categorical crime of moral turpitude and obstruction-of-justice offense. For non-citizens, a §135 conviction is a CIMT triggering removal under 8 USC §1227(a)(2)(A). For attorneys, physicians, real-estate agents, and CPAs, §135 conviction triggers licensure discipline. For witnesses in civil and administrative proceedings, §135 exposure often accompanies parallel civil sanctions (spoliation of evidence, adverse inferences, sanctions under CCP §2023.030). §135 is also the workhorse plea alternative in §141 tampering cases.
Official Sources
02 — Elements of the Crime
Elements the Prosecution Must Prove Under PC §135
To convict under PC §135, the prosecution must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Existence of Evidence
There must have been documentary or physical evidence — books, papers, records, writings, digital images, video recordings, or 'other matter or thing.'
Knowledge of Impending Production
The defendant must have known that the evidence was 'about to be produced' in a trial, inquiry, or investigation authorized by law.
Willful Destruction, Erasure, or Concealment
The defendant must have willfully — on purpose — destroyed, erased, or concealed the evidence.
Intent to Prevent Production
The defendant must have acted with the specific intent to prevent the evidence — or its content — from being produced.
04 — Penalties
Penalties for PC §135 Destroying or Concealing Evidence in California
PC §135 penalties are as follows.
| Charge | Code | Prison Term | Probation | Strike |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Destroying / Concealing Evidence | PC §135 | Up to 6 months county jail | Standard on first offense | No |
| Fine | PC §135 / §672 | Up to $1,000 | Fine additional to custody | N/A |
| PC §1001.95 Diversion | PC §1001.95 | Dismissal on completion | Diversion terms (12-24 months) | N/A |
| Civil Spoliation | CCP §2023.030 | Terminating sanctions / adverse inference / monetary sanctions | N/A | N/A |
Related Charges Frequently Filed with §135
PC §141
PC §141
Where destruction is accompanied by affirmative planting or altering, both statutes are charged.
PC §148.5
PC §148.5
False report to police is frequently charged alongside §135 where destruction was accompanied by a false statement.
PC §182
PC §182
Multi-defendant destruction schemes are charged as conspiracy in parallel.
Beyond the Sentence
- Categorical crime of moral turpitude — CIMT for immigration and licensing
- Attorney discipline / physician licensure discipline / real-estate license revocation
- Civil spoliation sanctions in the underlying case — terminating sanctions, adverse inference, monetary sanctions
- Federal parallel exposure under 18 U.S.C. §1519 (up to 20 years) — Sarbanes-Oxley obstruction
- SEC and civil-regulatory disgorgement in financial-fraud cases
Sentencing References
05 — Defense Strategies
How Rubin Law Defends PC §135 Destroying or Concealing Evidence Charges
Rubin Law, P.C. attacks the elements of PC §135 and drives outcomes that avoid conviction where possible.
No Knowledge of Pending Proceeding
§135 requires knowledge that the evidence was 'about to be produced.' Where destruction occurred before the defendant knew of any proceeding — even where a proceeding later materialized — the knowledge element fails.
PC §135
Routine Retention Policy
Destruction pursuant to a bona-fide, pre-existing document-retention policy is not §135 conduct. The policy must predate the proceeding and be applied uniformly.
Document retention
No Willful Destruction
Accidental destruction — spilled liquid, hard-drive crash, routine backup rotation, unintended deletion — is not §135. The People must prove on-purpose destruction.
PC §7
Not Actually Evidence
The item must have evidentiary value in a pending proceeding. Ordinary personal property, duplicative copies where the original is preserved elsewhere, and privileged materials produced in an assertion of privilege are not §135 destruction.
Evid. Code §350
Attorney-Client Privilege
An attorney's disposal of privileged communications, work product, or draft materials is subject to privilege protection and to Rule 1.6 confidentiality — not §135 obstruction.
Evid. Code §950
Fifth Amendment Act-of-Production
Refusing to produce evidence under a valid assertion of the Fifth Amendment (Fisher v. United States, Hubbell doctrine) is not §135 destruction. Rubin Law asserts act-of-production privilege where applicable.
Fifth Amendment
Diversion / DEJ
First-offense §135 filings are eligible for PC §1001.95 misdemeanor diversion. Rubin Law negotiates diversion, dismissal, or civil-compromise resolutions where possible.
Constitutional Sources
07 — Court Process
How PC §135 Destroying or Concealing Evidence Cases Move Through Los Angeles Courts
PC §135 cases proceed through the following stages.
- 1
Step 1 — Investigation
§135 investigations arise from a related underlying proceeding — civil, criminal, or administrative — in which evidence went missing. Investigators use forensic recovery, cloud-backup subpoenas, and preservation-notice analysis.
- 2
Step 2 — Filing / Arraignment
Filed as a misdemeanor in the criminal courthouse serving the location of the destruction.
- 3
Step 3 — Discovery & Digital Forensics
Digital forensic examination of drives, cloud backups, email accounts, and cell phones. Rubin Law engages digital-forensic experts on deletion metadata, retention policies, and recovery.
- 4
Step 4 — Pretrial Motions
PC §1538.5 suppression of forensic seizures, PC §1001.95 diversion motions, and Evidence Code §350 relevance challenges to the item's evidentiary status.
- 5
Step 5 — Diversion / Resolution
Most first-offense §135 filings resolve via PC §1001.95 diversion — dismissal on completion of 12–24 month program with community service or education.
- 6
Step 6 — Trial
Bench or jury trial on contested filings, typically 1–3 court days.
Los Angeles Courts That Handle PC §135 Destroying or Concealing Evidence Cases
PC §135 cases are filed in the courthouse serving the location of the destruction or concealment.
Reviewed by Your Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin — Los Angeles Destroying or Concealing Evidence Defense Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin has defended clients charged with destroying or concealing evidence and related offenses in Los Angeles County courts — including Clara Shortridge Foltz, Van Nuys, Compton, and Pomona. He understands that these cases are won in the details: the suppression hearing that eliminates key evidence, the preliminary hearing cross-examination that exposes a weak witness, the penalty phase argument that keeps a client out of the worst outcome.
This page was written and reviewed by Daniel A. Rubin, Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, CA State Bar 302093, with 10+ years of experience defending clients charged under PC §135 in Los Angeles County. Last reviewed: July 2026.
CA Bar 302093 | Whittier Law School | Rising Star — Super Lawyers 2019–2023 | Destroying or Concealing Evidence Cases Throughout LA County
See our full Destroying or Concealing Evidence defense practice
09 — FAQs
PC §135 Destroying or Concealing Evidence Questions — Los Angeles
What is PC §135?
PC §135 punishes anyone who, knowing that evidence is about to be produced in a trial, inquiry, or investigation authorized by law, willfully destroys, erases, or conceals it — with the intent to prevent its production. §135 is a misdemeanor.
Is §135 a felony?
No. §135 is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000. However, related conduct may be charged as a felony under PC §141 (tampering) or PC §132 (offering false evidence).
What is the difference between §135 and §141?
§135 punishes suppression — destroying, erasing, or concealing evidence to prevent its production. §141 punishes fabrication — planting, altering, or manufacturing evidence to cause a person to be charged or to be produced as genuine. The two are complementary and sometimes charged together.
Is accidental destruction §135?
No. §135 requires willful — on-purpose — destruction. Accidental spills, hardware failures, routine backup rotations, and unintended deletions do not satisfy the element.
Does a routine document-retention policy protect me?
Yes, if the policy is bona-fide, predates any known proceeding, and is applied uniformly. Rubin Law establishes retention-policy compliance through document production and affidavit testimony from records-management personnel.
Is §135 deportable?
Yes. §135 is a categorical crime of moral turpitude and obstruction-of-justice offense — deportable under 8 USC §1227(a)(2)(A)(i) and inadmissible under 8 USC §1182(a)(2)(A). Non-citizens should never plead to §135 without immigration-informed counsel.
Can §135 be diverted?
Yes. First-offense §135 misdemeanor filings are eligible for PC §1001.95 misdemeanor diversion — 12 to 24 months of terms culminating in dismissal on completion. Rubin Law negotiates diversion at arraignment or first appearance.
Available 24/7 — Free Consultation
Charged with Destroying or Concealing Evidence Under PC §135?
§135 is a categorical CIMT with immigration and licensure consequences beyond the misdemeanor sentence. Rubin Law, P.C. defends attorneys, professionals, and civilians with diversion, dismissal, and retention-policy defenses.