People v. Jaska
194 Cal. App. 4th 971
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Jaska served as Barstow Truck Parts' secretary-treasurer and controlled many BTP accounting functions from 1987 to 2002.
- Jaska was convicted on five counts of grand theft by embezzlement, three counts of filing false income tax returns, three counts of filing false amended tax returns, and five counts of perjury by declaration, with an aggravated white-collar crime enhancement alleged.
- Evidence showed pervasive mismanagement and improper withdrawals from BTP's petty cash, use of company funds to pay personal credit card charges, unauthorized pay and reimbursements, and expenses to finance a vehicle lease for Jaska.
- The defense argued the grand theft counts were a single scheme against one victim, asserting a Bailey-type single-intent framework should cap the convictions at a single count.
- The trial court imposed substantial penalties including a restitution order, a $300,000 fine, and a $499,999 restitution component; later, post-trial, the court addressed presentence credits and other financial remedies.
- On appeal, the majority held that the Bailey-based single-intent rule did not require reversal of the grand theft convictions (counts 1-5) and remanded for a determination of additional presentence credits under a January 2010 amendment to former § 4019.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bailey single-intent applicability | Jaska contends counts 1-5 arise from one plan and thus only one grand theft should stand. | Jaska argues Bailey precludes multiple theft convictions given a single intent and plan against one victim. | Convictions upheld; substantial evidence supported multiple intents. |
| Admissibility of expert testimony and exhibits | People relied on Franchise Tax Board expert using inadmissible exhibits supplied by DA. | Jaska argues exclusion or suppression of improper exhibits and testimony was error. | No reversible error; testimony and exhibits properly admitted or harmlessly admitted. |
| Presentence credits under amendment to § 4019 | Jaska seeks additional credits under the January 2010 amendment. | Amendment applies to this case and warrants recalculation of credits. | Remanded for determination of additional presentence credits; amendment applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bailey, 55 Cal.2d 514 (Cal. 1961) (single-intent Bailey rule governs multiple grand theft convictions)
- People v. Richardson, 83 Cal.App.3d 853 (Cal. App. 1978) (scheme evidence and multiple offenses against city funds)
- People v. Packard, 131 Cal.App.3d 622 (Cal. App. 1982) (phantom invoices; continued scheme over years; multiple convictions)
- People v. Kronemyer, 189 Cal.App.3d 314 (Cal. App. 1987) (single-plan rule despite multiple withdrawals)
- People v. Tabb, 170 Cal.App.4th 1142 (Cal. App. 2009) ( Bailey-type analysis in modern context)
- Arthur V., 166 Cal.App.4th 61 (Cal. App. 2008) ( Bailey-inspired analysis on timing and location of acts)