12 Cal.App.5th 1278
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Pier’Angela Spaccia, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Bell, was convicted by jury of multiple offenses arising from the Bell pay/pension scandal, including misappropriation of public funds (Pen. Code §424), conspiracy (§182), conflicts of interest (Gov. Code §§1090, 1097), and secreting an official record (Gov. Code §6200).
- Key factual pillars: large, unauthorized increases to salaries/benefits (for Rizzo, Spaccia, and others); creation and later amendments to Bell’s supplemental and replacement pension plans designed to avoid ERISA caps; and employee loans from Bell (not authorized by council under the charter) including $100,000 (2009) and $130,000 (2010) to Spaccia.
- Trial evidence showed Spaccia drafted employment contracts and pension-plan amendments at Rizzo’s direction, communicated with pension actuary Pennington about formula changes, and received pension and loan benefits; she testified she acted under Rizzo’s direction and lacked independent authority over funds or contract approvals.
- Jury convicted Spaccia on 11 counts; court sentenced her to an aggregate determinate term of 11 years, 8 months and ordered large restitution; court’s abstract incorrectly stated she must serve in state prison due to a serious/violent felony finding.
- On appeal the court (Second Appellate District) reviewed sufficiency of evidence on loans, correctness of §424 jury instructions (post-Hubbard), whether pension-plan changes constituted a contract under Gov. Code §1090, and clerical errors in the abstract of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Spaccia’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Spaccia knew or was criminally negligent the 2009/2010 loans were unauthorized (§424) | Evidence supports criminal negligence: Spaccia knew Bell adopted a charter requiring council authorization, had long public-sector experience, and failed to take reasonable steps to confirm authority for loans. | She did not know the loans were unauthorized; loans were part of an administrative program run by Rizzo/Garcia and she lacked authority. | Affirmed on sufficiency: substantial evidence supported criminal negligence finding as to knowledge for the 2009 and 2010 loans. |
| Validity of §424 instructions—whether an officer must also be charged with receipt/safekeeping/transfer/disbursement of public moneys (Hubbard issue) | The instruction properly tracked CALJIC and could be read to require that the officer also be charged with financial duties. | Instruction allowed conviction based solely on officer status (without proof she was charged with control over funds), contrary to Hubbard. | Instructional error: following Hubbard, conviction under §424 requires that an officer be charged with receipt/safekeeping/transfer/disbursement; CALJIC formulation used here was erroneous and prejudicial. Five §424 convictions reversed. |
| Whether amendments to Bell’s supplemental/replacement pension plan constituted a "contract" under Gov. Code §1090 | Modifications to pension plan amended employees’ contractual compensation (vested pension rights); thus participation in making those changes is making a contract within §1090. | Pension benefits are incident to employment contracts; pension plan is not a separate contract for §1090 purposes and overlaps with the employment-contract counts—double prosecution. | Affirmed: pension-plan amendments effectively amended employment contracts (changed vested pension compensation); Spaccia’s participation supported §1090 conviction on count 2 and is legally distinct from other employment-contract counts. |
| Whether conviction(s) could stand via aiding-and-abetting or control theories despite §424 instruction error | Even if one theory was invalid, there was strong evidence Spaccia had supervisory/control responsibilities or aided and abetted Rizzo; error was harmless. | Because jury could have convicted based only on officer status (invalid theory) and the prosecution emphasized that theory, prejudice cannot be ruled out. | Prejudice found: record does not permit concluding beyond a reasonable doubt jury relied on a legally valid theory (control or aiding/abetting). Reversal of §424 convictions required. |
| Abstract of judgment sentencing notation error | Not contested; People concede the abstract incorrectly references a current/prior serious or violent felony. | Court should correct clerical sentencing error. | Directed correction of the abstract of judgment to remove incorrect §1170(h)(3) notation. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hubbard, 63 Cal.4th 378 (clarifies §424 liability: public officer must be charged with receipt/safekeeping/transfer/disbursement of public moneys)
- People v. Stark, 52 Cal.4th 368 (establishes knowledge or criminal negligence element for §424 and duty to take reasonable steps to determine legal authorization)
- Lexin v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.4th 1050 (explains Gov. Code §1090 focuses on making of contracts and analysis for conflicts)
- People v. Perez, 35 Cal.4th 1219 (harmless error framework distinguishing legally inadequate vs. factually inadequate jury theories)
- People v. Dillon, 199 Cal. 1 (historical statement of strict legislative protection of public moneys)