People v. Chacon

150 P.3d 755 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

While a member of the Bell Gardens City Council, D sought and obtained an appointment as city manager. The Municipal Code provided that a council member was ineligible for appointment for one year following his or her departure from the council. City Attorney Beltran drafted an ordinance eliminating the waiting period, and Councilmember Pedro Aceituno placed it on the council agenda. D joined the other council members in voting unanimously for the ordinance. The council met in a special closed session to choose a city manager. D excused herself from this session. The council approved D's appointment but modified her requested terms. The council then announced its decision in a public session. D accepted the appointment, resigned from the council and signed an employment contract, approved by Beltran. D was charged with violating Government Code section 1090. D represented that Beltran advised her on the legality of her efforts to become city manager and was actively involved in the appointment process. The prosecutor sought to exclude evidence of Beltran's advice as irrelevant, arguing that because D was charged with a general intent crime, advice of counsel was not a defense. D was going to assert the defense of “entrapment by estoppel” because she relied on advice from a government official that her conduct was legal. The court ruled that D could present evidence of entrapment by estoppel. P refused to prosecute, and the case was dismissed. P appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded that the City Attorney had neither enforcement nor regulatory authority over criminal conflict of interest statutes and did not have the power to bind the state to an erroneous interpretation of the conflict of interest statutes. The Court reversed, and D appealed.