People v. Lofchie
229 Cal. App. 4th 240
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Michael Lofchie, a UCLA political science professor and former chair, participated in hiring his wife as a paid program assistant for a four-week 2008 summer study-abroad course; she was hired by UCLA’s Office of Summer Sessions and paid ~$3,100 plus per diem.
- A colleague complained internally and to the County DA after the University declined further discipline; the DA charged Lofchie with a felony under Gov. Code § 1090 for being financially interested in a contract he helped make.
- Lofchie moved to dismiss the information under Penal Code § 995, arguing § 1090 does not apply to the University of California or its faculty, that Pub. Contract Code § 10516 governs, and that § 1090 is vague as applied.
- The trial court granted dismissal; the People appealed.
- The Court of Appeal considered (1) whether § 1090’s references to the “state” include the constitutionally autonomous University of California and its employees, and (2) whether applying § 1090 would intrude upon university internal governance reserved to the Regents under Cal. Const. art. IX, § 9.
- The court affirmed dismissal, holding § 1090 does not apply to this University hiring decision because it intrudes on exclusively internal university affairs and is not a matter of statewide concern.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1090 applies to the University of California and its employees | § 1090’s terms should be construed broadly; "state" includes UC and its employees, so criminal prosecution is proper | UC and Lofchie: UC is a constitutional public trust with autonomy under art. IX, § 9; Legislature did not clearly intend § 1090 to cover UC internal affairs | Held: § 1090 does not apply here — no clear legislative intent to include UC; applying § 1090 would intrude on Regents’ governance powers |
| Whether Public Contract Code § 10516 preempts or displaces § 1090 (Williamson rule) | § 10516 and § 1090 can coexist; Williamson rule not triggered | § 10516’s special UC provisions (and exemptions for teaching/research staff) displace general § 1090 | Held: No conflict — the statutes govern different conduct; Williamson rule does not apply |
| Whether regulating this hiring decision is a matter of statewide concern permitting legislative intrusion under art. IX, § 9 | Preventing public official self‑dealing is a statewide concern that can apply to UC | Hiring program assistants for a 4‑week course is an internal university affair central to UC governance and covered by UC conflict rules | Held: This is an internal university affair, not a matter of statewide concern; applying § 1090 would impermissibly impair Regents’ autonomy |
| Forfeiture (did People waive argument by inconsistent positions below) | People argue inconsistent wording below did not prejudice defendant; they can argue on appeal | Lofchie contends People forfeited the argument by concessions below | Held: No forfeiture; court reached the merits because Lofchie suffered no prejudice and trial court rejected People’s position |
Key Cases Cited
- Tolman v. Underhill, 39 Cal.2d 708 (Cal. 1952) (legislation on matters of statewide concern can apply to UC; loyalty oath was statewide concern)
- San Francisco Labor Council v. Regents of University of California, 26 Cal.3d 785 (Cal. 1980) (art. IX, § 9 grants Regents broad self‑governance; Legislature may regulate only specified areas or matters of statewide concern)
- Regents of University of California v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 17 Cal.3d 533 (Cal. 1976) (UC subject to generally applicable laws like usury law when acting like private parties)
- People v. Christiansen, 216 Cal.App.4th 1181 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (court will not judicially expand § 1090’s scope to cover persons not clearly within the statute for criminal prosecutions)