In People v. Bradley (— Cal.Rptr. 3d —, 2006 WL 2441527, Cal.App. 2 Dist., Aug. 24, 2006), a California Court of Appeal upheld convictions against three city officials for using city credit cards for personal expenses and to pay for travel expenses for which they had received advances.
Facts
Defendants – the mayor, a city council member, and the city manager of the City of Compton – were convicted of misappropriation and misuse of public funds for (1) charging personal expenses to credit cards issued to them by City and (2) “double-billing” City by obtaining cash advances for travel expenses and then charging the same expenses to the City credit cards. Defendants appealed their convictions.
Decision
Penal Code section 424 makes it illegal for a city officer to appropriate public money to his or her own use “without authority of law,” or to loan, use or make a profit from public money “for any purpose not authorized by law.” Defendants argued that the trial court did not adequately instruct the jury because it did not define the phrases “without authority of law” and “not authorized by law.” The Court of Appeal disagreed, because the phrases have a common, not a technical, meaning; they mean “not being legally sanctioned.” The evidence presented to the jury supported a finding that the expenditures were not legally sanctioned – the city resolution authorizing the credit cards specifically said they were to be used solely for approved City expenses; the city manager had no authority to approve an expense for personal use; and the relevant travel requests were for specified amounts and purposes and were subject to a City travel policy.
The Court also disagreed with Defendants’ argument that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions. The city manager made purchases on his City credit card for such things as a trip to a basketball tournament for his son’s team, a camcorder, a digital camera, a membership to a fitness center; and he double-billed the City on least seven occasions for travel expenses related to conferences. The city council member used his City credit card to pay for such personal items as dentures for his brother, airfare for family members, rounds of golf, in-room movies, and rental cars for a co-employee; he also double-billed City for expenses at nine conferences. The mayor used his City credit card for such personal items as airfare for his family, green fees and golf cart rentals, golf accessories, cigars, in-room movies, and a three-day stay in the penthouse suite of a hotel; he also double-billed the city for travel to conferences and received travel advances for a conference he did not attend.
The Court rejected Defendants’ argument that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that restitution was not a valid defense. Even though Defendants paid back some of the charges, the crimes were complete when they used the City credit cards to make a personal purchase or when they failed to promptly return advanced funds that were not used.
The Court of Appeal therefore upheld the convictions.
Legal Alert Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.