AB 2304 makes a narrowly targeted, textual change to Penal Code section 132, the statute that criminalizes offering forged or fraudulently altered written instruments as genuine in any legal proceeding. The bill replaces the statute’s awkward opening wording with a streamlined phrase without altering the substantive elements or stated penalty in the statutory text.
For practitioners this is largely housekeeping: the crime — offering forged documents as true — remains a felony under the same statutory framework. The principal relevance is to litigators, courts, and codifiers who prefer clear, unambiguous statutory drafting and who might otherwise expend time addressing typographical or drafting oddities in filings and opinions.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 2304 amends Penal Code §132 by adjusting the statute’s opening language (removing a redundant or incorrect word) to read "A person who…" The bill’s Digest labels the change "technical, nonsubstantive."
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are criminal prosecutors and defense counsel who litigate forgery and falsification-of-evidence cases, court clerks and judges who cite §132, and legislative drafting and codification offices that maintain the California Codes.
Why It Matters
Although the bill does not alter elements or penalties, it eliminates an obvious drafting irregularity that can create needless briefing or citation problems. Courts are likely to treat this as a stylistic fix, but defense counsel may nonetheless test the change in close cases.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Penal Code section 132 makes it a felony to offer in evidence, as genuine or true, any book, paper, document, record, or other instrument in writing when the actor knows it has been forged, fraudulently altered, or antedated. AB 2304 rewrites the statute’s opening phrase to use the concise formulation "A person who…" The bill’s legislative digest frames the amendment as technical and nonsubstantive, signaling that the Legislature does not intend to change the crime’s scope or penalties.
The bill does not add elements, defenses, penalties, or procedural steps. It leaves intact the conduct criminalized — knowingly offering a forged or altered writing as genuine in any proceeding authorized by law — and the classification of that conduct as a felony.
In effect, AB 2304 addresses form rather than substance: it fixes wording that appears to be a duplication or typographical error in the existing code text.Practically, there are no new compliance requirements, investigative powers, or prosecutorial tools created by this amendment. The principal impacts are administrative and interpretive: statutory publishers, online code services, and court reporters will update the printed and electronic texts; litigants and judges will have a cleaner text to quote and analyze.
Because the bill is presented as nonsubstantive, courts are likely to treat it as a stylistic correction rather than a change in law, but parties could still press interpretive arguments in closely contested matters.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2304 changes the opening words of Penal Code §132 to read "A person who…"—a textual correction of the statute’s phrasing.
The bill does not add, remove, or redefine any element of the offense; offering forged or fraudulently altered writings as genuine remains charged as a felony under §132.
The legislative digest explicitly describes the amendment as "technical, nonsubstantive," indicating legislative intent to avoid altering substantive law.
AB 2304 contains no penalty adjustments, procedural directives, or implementation funding; it is limited to amending the statutory text.
Because the change is stylistic, the immediate practical effects are limited to updating statutory compilations, citations in briefs and opinions, and preventing arguments based on typographical ambiguity.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Textual revision to Penal Code §132
This is the operative provision: it replaces the statute’s existing opening phrase with the concise phrase "A person who…" The mechanics are simple — a single-line amendment that does not insert new words beyond the corrected opening. That limits the scope of what courts will read into the bill: there is no new subsection, definitional language, or penalty modification to analyze.
Characterization as technical and nonsubstantive
The bill’s Digest explicitly labels the change "technical, nonsubstantive." That characterization matters because courts and administrative agencies commonly rely on legislative statements of intent when assessing whether a textual change reflects a substantive policy shift. Here, the Legislative Counsel’s framing supports treating the amendment as housekeeping rather than a change in criminal liability.
Administrative and citation effects
Though the statutory language is not functionally different, the amendment requires updates to statutory databases, annotated codes, and citation forms. Defense and prosecution briefs that previously quoted or reproduced the earlier wording may need correction. The change also reduces the chance that litigants will raise collateral claims based on typographical imprecision in the statute’s wording.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Defense attorneys: gain a cleaner statutory text to quote and a lower chance that typographical oddities will be portrayed as substantive defects in charging documents.
- Prosecutors: benefit from reduced procedural argument over whether drafting oddities create ambiguity about statutory coverage, simplifying pleadings and briefing.
- Courts and clerks: receive a corrected, streamlined statute that reduces transcription and citation errors and marginally speeds opinion drafting and record-keeping.
- Legislative drafters and codifiers: avoid perpetuating a drafting error in the official code; simplifies future amendments and cross-references.
Who Bears the Cost
- Courts, clerks, and legal publishers: minor administrative costs to update printed and electronic texts and correct prior reproductions of the statute.
- Defense and prosecution offices: modest time costs for updating internal templates, charging forms, and precedent files to reflect the revised phrasing.
- State agencies that rely on statutory text for training or forms: small training and document-revision costs to ensure citations and quoted statutory language match the amended code.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between statutory clarity and the legal significance of textual corrections: the Legislature seeks to tidy code language to reduce ambiguity and administrative friction, while defense counsel may view even ‘‘technical’’ edits as opportunities to challenge charges or create procedural leverage in close cases.
The bill is deliberately narrow, but even narrow drafting edits can prompt litigation. Some defense counsel litigate on technicalities; a stylistic change labeled "nonsubstantive" does not preclude arguments that the prior wording created ambiguity or that the amendment alters statutory meaning in ways not anticipated.
Courts will likely reject such claims where the change is limited to phrasing, but expect early challenges in high-stakes prosecutions where every procedural avenue is explored.
There is also a cataloging and harmonization question: other statutes, case opinions, or secondary sources that quoted the pre-amendment wording will remain in circulation. That produces a small but real risk of inconsistencies in briefing and judicial opinions until databases, reporters, and practitioners standardize on the revised text.
Finally, because the bill does not include a clear severability or retroactivity clause, there is a theoretical—though legally weak—argument about whether the correction affects past proceedings that cited the earlier wording.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.