Stark v. Superior Court, 257 P.3d 41

Stark, auditor-controller of Sutter County, faced allegations of misusing public funds and departing from board directives during 2003–2005, prompting a grand jury to indict on counts under Penal Code §424 and Government Code §3060.
Counts 3, 9, 10, 12, and 13 arise from transferring general fund reserves to Waterworks District, IT department billing delays, withholding IT wages, and overtime/pay holidays under public-finance duties, with underlying disputes over legal authority and accounting rules.
The Board and CAO clashed with Stark over budget processes, including unauthorized transfers, rate-setting for IT services, and balancing funds, leading to disputed transfers and late final budgets.
The grand jury proceedings included an instructional framework on mental state for §424 offenses, as well as parallel Government Code §3060 accusations, and the attorney's arguments and slides at trial were scrutinized for potential misguidance.
The Court of Appeal affirmed most indictments but set aside several counts; this court granted review to address mens rea for §424, the proper vehicle to challenge grand jury instructions, and DA conflict issues in the indictment.
The decision ultimately holds §424 offenses are general intent crimes requiring either actual knowledge or criminal negligence about the legal authorization governing the act or omission.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mental state for §424 offenses	Stark argued only general intent; knowledge of unlawfulness required.	People urged knowledge or criminal negligence suffices under §424(a)1, 6, 7.	Actual knowledge or criminal negligence required; not strict liability.
Indictment challenge based on grand jury instruction	Misinstruction on mens rea under §424 could render indictment invalid under §995(a)(1)(B).	People argued §995 applies only to due-process claims not instructional error.	Section 995(a)(1)(B) may be used to challenge instructional error on mens rea.
§3060 willful misconduct mental state	DA argument/powerPoint may vitiate proper instruction; accusatory claims may be invalid.	Argues no reversible error; record shows proper consideration of knowledge standard.	Record sufficient; argument failure not reversible.
Conflict-of-interest as a basis to set aside indictment/accusation	Greer standard applicable to due-process dismissal due to DA conflict.	Section 1424 governs disqualification; Greer standard disallowed for indictments.	No due-process violation; §1424 controls; Greer standard does not apply to indictments.

People v. Dillon, 199 Cal.1 (Cal. 1926) (section 424 general intent; protects public funds)
People v. Vogel, 46 Cal.2d 798 (Cal. 1956) (wrongful intent requires knowledge of facts)
People v. Simon, 9 Cal.4th 493 (Cal. 1995) (knowledge or criminal negligence for securities fraud-like statute)
People v. Coria, 21 Cal.4th 868 (Cal. 1999) (knowledge of substance characteristics required for possession of methamphetamine)
People v. Garcia, 25 Cal.4th 744 (Cal. 2001) (willful failure to register requires knowledge of the duty)
People v. King, 38 Cal.4th 617 (Cal. 2006) (knowledge of weapon’s illegal characteristics required for possession)
In re Jorge M., 23 Cal.4th 866 (Cal. 2000) (knowledge or reasonable should have known of firearm characteristics)
People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444 (Cal. 1969) (general intent vs. wrongful intent)
Cummiskey v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.4th 1018 (Cal. 1992) (section 995 instructional error challenge to grand jury)
People v. Vasquez, 39 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2006) (section 1424 conflict-of-interest disqualification standard)
People v. Eubanks, 14 Cal.4th 582 (Cal. 1996) (section 1424 conflict-of-interest discussion; disqualification standards)
Backus v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.3d 360 (Cal. 1979) (grand jury due process in indictments)