79 So. 3d 1248
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Harris served as mayor of Richwood for about 24 years and was defeated for reelection.
- After losing, Harris refused to cooperate with the incoming administration and withheld information and access.
- In the last eight days of his term, he terminated all town employees, plundered the general fund, and overdrawn the account by about $26,000.
- He was convicted of malfeasance in office under La. R.S. 14:134, sentenced to five years at hard labor with suspension, and five years of supervised probation plus restitution of $65,360.
- The amended bill of particulars alleged four acts: a scheme to disrupt the town and benefit the defendant, unlawful severance payments, issuance of checks when funds were insufficient, and depletion of town funds.
- The trial relied on testimony from the current mayor and other town officials and employees, who described changes to policies and the timing of checks and severance payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of malfeasance in office? | State argues the four unlawful acts prove malfeasance. | Harris contends evidence fails to show intentional unlawful conduct. | Yes; the evidence supports all four unlawful acts and intent. |
| Did severance payments render the conduct unlawful? | State contends severance payments violated policy and law. | Harris argues payments were authorized by policy and ordinance. | Insufficient funds and knowledge of illegality established unlawfulness. |
| Were the NSF checks a basis for malfeasance? | State relies on the NSF checks and depleted funds. | Harris argues payments followed policy and board approval. | Yes; issuance of checks with insufficient funds supported malfeasance. |
| Did depleting town funds support malfeasance? | State shows total funds could not cover the checks. | Harris argues overdraft protection and budgetary adjustments could cover payments. | Yes; overall depletion of funds established unlawful acts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1979) (sufficiency standard for evidence; deference to trial credibility)
- State v. Perez, 464 So.2d 737 (La. 1985) (duty requirement for malfeasance in office; express duty imposed by law)
- State v. Huizar, 414 So.2d 741 (La. 1982) (intent and element determination for crime; review standards)
- State v. Sutton, 436 So.2d 471 (La. 1983) (conflict of direct evidence; credibility is weight not sufficiency)
- State v. Pigford, 922 So.2d 517 (La. 2006) (sufficiency of evidence; appellate deference to jury)