Jesus GÁNDARA a/k/a Jesus Gándara, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 08-15-00201-CR
Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso.
November 16, 2016
Discretionary Review Refused March 22, 2017
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ. OPINION by YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice
Conclusion
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ motion to compel arbitration. The partnership agreement contained a broad arbitration clause requiring the parties to submit any dispute to arbitration. Subsequently, sisters Baird and Duarte “returned to the bargaining table and began negotiations to terminate their business relationship.” TransCore Holdings, Inc., 104 S.W.3d at 323. Their negotiations led to a new agreement, the Settlement Agreement. That agreement, in very broad and unequivocal language, unconditionally released the parties from all previous obligations. For these reasons, we affirm the trial court‘s judgment.
Jaime E. Gandara, Chief Public Defender, El Paso, TX, for Appellant.
OPINION
YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice
This case is an example of how difficult it is to distinguish politics from bribery. Jesus Gándara was convicted of bribery for seeking public support from Licon Dairy, an influential business in San Elizario‘s business area to benefit the taxpayers of the City of Socorro. Gándara solicited the Licon‘s public support of the City of Socorro‘s proposed annexation of the San Elizario area in exchange for his efforts as a sitting councilmember of the City of Socorro to “mediate” or “spearhead” favorable initiatives for the dairy thereby ultimately benefitting the City of Socorro. On appeal, Gándara asserts he could not and should not have been convicted of bribery, because he neither requested nor received a pecuniary benefit while engaged in the constitutionally-protected political act of “soliciting support for an initiative that would benefit his constituents.” See
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In December 2012, the City of Socorro notified the townsfolk of San Elizario that it was proposing to annex San Elizario‘s business area. This area encompassed approximately twenty businesses, including the Licon Dairy, famous for its asaderos and petting zoo. The dairy was owned and operated by the following members of the Licon family: Eugenio; his wife, Sandra; and their son, Angel. The Licons were influential and well-respected in San Elizario, and, like the other business owners in town, were opposed to annexation for regulatory, financial, and historical reasons.
In January 2013, the Council of the City of Socorro convened two public meetings (of a scheduled three) to hear the public‘s input on the proposed annexation. Eugenio and Angel attended both meetings in the hopes of receiving more information. To their dismay, they did not.
Approximately one week after the second public meeting, Gándara contacted Sandra asking for the opportunity to talk to her and Eugenio soon. Eager for more information about the proposed annexation, Sandra agreed to meet Gándara the following evening.
The meeting did not take place in the Licons’ home as arranged. Instead, it took place inside Gándara‘s van. For approximately one and one-half hours, Gándara drove Eugenio, Sandra, and Angel (who had come at Sandra‘s insistence) to several facilities and attractions in the City of Socorro and conversed with them about various matters, including the proposed annexation. Unbeknownst to Gándara, the conversation between him and the Licons was recorded by Eugenio on his phone.
Early on in the recording, Gándara informs the Licons he “want[s] [to] pitch to
And so anyways—so I want to go back to—and this is what I kind of want to talk about, if we know—or—or if [the annexation] is an eventuality, what can we do? How does it benefit you? And that‘s kind of what I wanted to talk about. And I also wanted to show you we have resources in Socorro, we‘re not a poor pueblito, we‘ve got pretty good money. You know, and that‘s the one thing the Licon Dairy has not had is a backer, somebody who‘s got finances, who can promote you ... [and] we don‘t have that gem which is the Licon Dairy.
. . .
But this city has money to—to—to promote you. You know, we can pump $40,000 into an advertisement campaign of the Licon Dairy because it‘s located in the city of Socorro. We can do a spring break, you know, fish thing at the pond, you know, where the first weekend is children only and the city of Socorro stocks it, we rent that location from you, we put all the money into it, we spend $40,000 on a two-weekend spring break. You know, we have those resources. If—if you-all come into the city—and again I have to say ‘if’ because we‘re not done with the (indiscernible), but if you-all come into the city, you know, it‘s the same Socorro as it was three years ago.
. . .
There‘s a benefit. You know, you told me, Boyd, ‘If r [sic] could get my hands on that water.’
. . .
Well, darn it, let‘s work on getting your hands on that water.
. . .
But here‘s kind of what I‘m—I‘m pitching to you-all is that we get that the people that are being annexed don‘t want to do it.
. . .
[A]nd this is what I‘m proposing—we figure something out, you know, and it would be a mutually beneficial compromise which is that—which is basically, you know, the Licon Dairy would have to say something like, you know, we want to be annexed by the city of Socorro because of whatever reasons you want to give, the resources they can give.
And the city of Socorro, in turn, because at this time it‘d be great to have somebody you know, let‘s talk honestly, say, you know, they want to be annexed by the city of Socorro. The city of Socorro—and this is where I come in, this is kind of my mediation, we get something big out of it for the Licon Dairy. You know, five months from now, Boyd, if this annexation goes through, we‘re not at the same level and now you‘re just paying more property taxes. Instead, you have this great relationship with the city of Socorro that‘s—that‘s putting billboards on I-10, that‘s putting signs up, you know, at the Clint cutoff, saying
. . .
You know, so there‘s—and that‘s kind of what I want to talk to you about is—is—you don‘t have to make decision now,
but We‘re [sic] getting close to it and I‘d love to mediate that all for you if—if you are interested. . . .
[A]nd like I said earlier, I would never propose this to anybody else and it‘s—and it‘s not a bribe. The Licon Dairy is a wonderful asset and if the Licon Dairy did something beforehand—and I don‘t speak for the council, but I do speak for myself and I can speak for myself and what I can say is that I would spearhead these projects and the ammunition I would have would be ‘look at what they‘ve done for us.’
The Licons did not accept Gándara‘s offer.
The recording was copied to a compact disc and given to the attorney hired by the Licons and other business owners to fight the proposed annexation.1 After the recording was turned over to law enforcement, Gándara was indicted on one count of bribery in violation of
[I]ntentionally and knowingly solicit[ing] a benefit ... from Licon Dairies, to wit: public support for the City of Socorro‘s proposed annexation of San Elizario as consideration for the defendant‘s decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, to wit: a city councilmember for the City of Socorro.
At trial, the State‘s evidence consisted of the recording and the Licons’ testimonies. Although the entire recording was played for the jury‘s benefit, albeit in pieces, during Eugenio‘s testimony, only certain snippets of it were played during Sandra‘s testimony. Each of the Licons testified they considered Gándara‘s offer a bribe. Angel told Gándara “all this sounds like a bribe to me.” At which point, Gándara immediately stopped the car in the middle of the road and responded this is “not a bribe.” Mr. Eugenio Licon stated that Gándara assured his son, Angel, that “everything would be legal, everything would be aboveboard[.]” Gándara also explained to Mr. Licon that he was reaching out to the business community. When pressed by the State as to how Angel defined bribery, he said “a bribe is when somebody offers ... in exchange for their part[ ], either money or benefits.”
During the drive, Sandra Licon asks Gándara how the annexation of San Elizario would benefit the Licons. Gándara responds by touring the City of Socorro with the Licons, showing them the paved streets and sidewalks, the police station, discussing the possibility of a paid fire department and additional water rights for the farmers. Gándara told them that a Port of Entry may be placed in San Elizario and a Riverwalk built along with a telescope like the McDonald Observatory, all of which would benefit Socorro and San Elizario. Towards the end of the tour, Gándara offers the Licons the specific benefits of the highway advertising and the spring-break fishing for the children. The State clarified that Angel understood Gándara was offering the Licons these inducements for their public support and that Gándara would persuade the other Socorro council members to obtain the promotional funding.
The State in closing argument argued the Licons’ public support for the annexation would, if the annexation effort was successful, increase taxes and the tax base so, therefore, the Licons’ public support was a pecuniary gain or advantage. Further, the benefit was not required to be paid directly to Gándara, but could “go to
After the State rested, Gándara moved for a directed verdict arguing that he could not be convicted of bribery because the State failed to prove “public support falls within the definition of benefit under the penal code.” A lengthy discussion then ensued between the State and the trial court concerning the State‘s theory of the case. Relevant for our purposes are the following colloquies concerning the notion of public support as a pecuniary benefit:
[TRIAL COURT]: But how is that pecuniary gain or advantage?
[PROSECUTOR]: Because one, Your Honor, he places a value on it. And he says to the Licons, It would be great to have somebody like you come out; it would be a mutually beneficial compromise. So in that statement and in that arrangement, he has placed a value on it of at least $80,000 because in exchange, in this mutually beneficial compromise, he says that their public support is worth $40,000 for advertising, $40,000 for a fishing weekend.
. . .
[TRIAL COURT]: But the benefit is pecuniary gain or advantage to that individual. You‘re saying that because he‘s acting as a city council member in the City of Socorro who‘s going to benefit by the annexation is just like the City El Paso benefits from the annexation of any property.
[PROSECUTOR]: Well, I agree, Your Honor. There‘s two ways that the public support is a pecuniary advantage to the City of Socorro. One is, first of all he has placed a value on it. He said it‘s worth this much when he went and offered the Licons $80,000 and more for it. And he described it as a mutually beneficial compromise. So he is saying that that public support is worth what I‘m offering for it. Now, he is saying that, Your Honor. He is placing that value on it. And then he directly ties it to the annexation, which is going to result in taxes—
[TRIAL COURT]: Which again begs the question, if you‘re going to interpret it that way, then he‘s offering a benefit.
[PROSECUTOR]: No, he‘s asking for—the benefit, the thing he‘s asking for, Judge, is the public support. He is asking for public support. The public support is the benefit. He valued their public support.
[TRIAL COURT]: How is it—
[PROSECUTOR]: He valued their public support at $80,000, Your Honor. He said, Your public support is worth $80,000 to the City of Socorro. I‘m going to offer you 40,000 for advertising and I‘m going to offer you 40,000 for fishing.
[TRIAL COURT]: I‘m offering.
[PROSECUTOR]: Well, in the context of valuing it, Your Honor. But he says, I‘m asking for the public support, I‘m soliciting. And so—
[TRIAL COURT]: In exchange for your public support, I‘m offering so much.
[PROSECUTOR]: Yeah, I‘m offering my decision or vote—
I‘m offering to get you 40,000, whatever. [PROSECUTOR]: Yes, sir. So when he does that—
[TRIAL COURT]: So he‘s offering a benefit.
[PROSECUTOR]: He‘s offering the 40,000, but he‘s asking for the public support. Please give me your public support. In exchange for it, I will give you my discretion to get $40,000. That‘s what the statute prohibits. The statute says when you go out and ask for this benefit—please give your public support. In exchange for that public support, I‘m going to give you my decision or vote.
Now, my decision or vote, I‘m going to go and ask for 40,000 for this and 40,000 for that and water. But under the terms of the statute, it was, I solicited, I asked for your public support and in exchange for that, I‘m going to give you my influence on city council. And that‘s what the statute says. You violate the statute when you solicit the benefit as consideration for your decision, vote, influence as a public servant.
[TRIAL COURT]: I solicit a benefit being pecuniary gain or advantage.
[PROSECUTOR]: Yes, sir.
. . .
[TRIAL COURT]: The pecuniary gain or advantage.
[PROSECUTOR]: Well, the pecuniary gain, Your Honor, is one, the public support is valued, in his estimation, at least $80,000. Plus he‘s tied it directly to the annexation. The annexation is going to be worth much more than that to the City of Socorro. It‘s going to allow them to tax, property tax and sales tax all of those businesses.
He indicates on the recording that they‘re going to put in a port of entry and they‘re going to develop that land. That‘s going to make all of that worth a lot of money. That‘s a pecuniary gain or a pecuniary advantage.
[TRIAL COURT]: To the community.
[PROSECUTOR]: Yes, to the City of Socorro.
[TRIAL COURT]: I mean, but that happens on a daily basis in any decision made by any official that‘s on a council, on a city, a municipality or a county commissioners, state, you know, legislative body or agency.
[PROSECUTOR]: Well, but in this situation, Your Honor, the circumstances are that this city council member from the City of Socorro is trying to use his influence to beat out the town and to improperly defeat the town of San Elizario. They want to annex and the people in San Elizario do not want to be annexed. They‘re talking about filing a lawsuit.
He talks on the tape about the county filing a lawsuit. He is trying to avoid all of that process. He is trying to avoid all of that by getting their public support because there has been evidence, Your Honor, that the annexation did not occur. It did not occur.
[TRIAL COURT]: So the solicitation is public support?
[PROSECUTOR]: Yes, sir. And there‘s evidence that that is a benefit.
Although the trial court was not entirely convinced a criminal act had occurred under the State‘s broad interpretation of the bribery statute, it nonetheless denied the motion for directed verdict.
In his closing arguments, Gándara repeatedly argued to the jury that no crime had been committed because the benefit alleged to have been sought by him—the Licon Dairy‘s public support for the proposed annexation—had no pecuniary value. The Licon Dairy‘s public support for the
Gandara raises two issues on appeal. In his first issue, he claims “the trial court should have granted the motion for directed verdict because the evidence proved that [he] did not bribe the Licons.” In his second issue, he maintains his conviction “must be reversed because it violated his rights to free speech and to engage in political activity guaranteed by the United States and Texas Constitutions.”
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In his primary issue, Gándara contends he was entitled to a directed verdict for two reasons. The first is because ”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Sufficiency
In claiming that his conduct does not constitute an offense under
In conducting our review, we must recognize and respect that the jury is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of witness testimony, and it is the jury‘s responsibility to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). On appeal, we presume that the jury resolved any conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict and, so long as such resolution is rational, we defer to that resolution. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 894-95; Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326.
Historical Perspective of Bribery
We turn to an examination of the cases involving bribery. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently cited examples of bribery as “seeking the dismissal of a traffic ticket or prosecution for a family member or the seeking of a pay raise for oneself all involve attempts to obtain a personal benefit.” Ex parte Perry, 483 S.W.3d 884, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). The Court noted that “bribery is also proscribed by the Texas Constitution, which articulates the elements of that offense.” Id. at 914. “Obtaining a personal benefit is a constitutionally required element of bribery .... ” Id.3
The State declares that “it cannot be disputed that Gándara, as an elected member of the Socorro City Council, had a direct and substantial interest in the welfare of the City of Socorro ....” In support, the State cites to the Texas Constitution, asserting that “A public official is the servant of the people. It is his first duty to impartially protect and further their interests ....”
Bribery may be defined generally as the voluntary giving or offering to, or the acceptance by, any public officer or official, of any sum of money, present, or thing of value, to influence such officer or official in the performance of any official duty required of him, or to incline him to act contrary to known rules of honesty and integrity.
Among ancient peoples, and even among Romans, the giving of rewards and emoluments to public officers, especially judicial officers, was tolerated and even encouraged; without such inducements no audience could be had. A later age apprehended the danger of such custom; hence the fiat of the common law against it.
A public official is the servant of the people. It is his first duty impartially to protect and further their interests, and he should not be permitted to profit through the performance of his public functions. The spirit of any democratic government is utterly abhorrent from anything which tends to corruption in the representatives of the people, or threatens the purity of the administration of government. And as wealth and power may become powerful forces in a dangerous direction, the protection of equal rights among the people demands that a severe penalty be visited upon any member of the community who offers or gives a bribe, and also upon any representative who receives or offers to receive an inducement to official action.
All the constitutions of Texas had provisions on bribery, but the provision in the present constitution is the most detailed. According to contemporary reports, there were two reasons underlying its length, one, the corruption of the reconstruction government; and two, the fact that lobbyists for the railroad interests were much in evidence around the doors of the convention and these lobbyists were not hesitant in efforts to tempt the makers of the constitution.
Texas case law is replete with examples in which a government official is charged with accepting a financial gain in exchange for a wrongful exercise of his governmental duties. In Davis v. State, Sheriff Davis accepted money in exchange for ignoring and not investigating individuals manufacturing whiskey. 101 Tex. Crim. 243, 247-48, 275 S.W. 1060, 1062 (1925). In Selvidge v. State, Selvidge paid $200 to Sheriff Sanders to permit the transportation of intoxicating liquors in violation of the Sheriff‘s duty. 126 Tex. Crim. 489, 490, 72 S.W.2d 1079, 1079-80 (1934). The Selvidge court characterized bribery as an offense in which a public official for a valuable reward agrees to refrain from performing his official duties or corruptly perform his duties contrary to the law. Id. In Roseman v. State, the appellant was convicted of bribing a police officer with $20 so as to refrain from being arrested for gaming and liquor law violations. 382 S.W.2d 261, 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964). In McClelland v. State, Probate Judge McClelland was found to have accepted bribes from five individuals in exchange for appointing those individuals as appraisers, administrators, and guardians in the Probate Court. 390 S.W.2d 777, 778-79 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965). In Bates v. Texas, Judge Bates was convicted of bribery by accepting money in exchange for a defendant sentenced in his court to probation. 587 S.W.2d 121, 125-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The Bates Court noted that “[T]he inequity of the procuring of public officials, be it intentional or unintentional, is so fatally destructive to good government that a statute designed to remove the temptation for a public official to give preferment to one member of the public over another, by
The Davis court defined bribery as an offense that had ” ‘the tendency ... to prevent justice in any of the governmental departments-executive, legislative, or judicial.’ ” Davis v. State, 70 Tex. Crim. 524, 528, 158 S.W. 288, 289 (1913). The Cox Court defined bribery thus:
Bribery comes to us from the common law, and consists of the prostitution of a public trust. It is a betrayal of public interest, and a debauchment of the public conscience.
. . .
In addition to our statutes upon the subject, our founding fathers wrote into the Constitution of this state a prohibition against bribery by the officers of this government and therein decreed that it was a violation of the Constitution for an officer of this state to solicit or consent to accept a bribe.
In Hubbard v. State, the conviction of bribery was upheld when the appellant, a heroin distributor, offered and paid a police officer for providing information as to when his heroin dealers were to be raided. 668 S.W.2d 419, 420 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1984), remanded on other grounds, 739 S.W.2d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The Hubbard Court, stated that bribery is “the conferring of a benefit upon a public servant as consideration for violation of one of his duties ....” Id. at 420. The Hubbard Court further noted that the bribery offense focuses on the mental state of the actor. Id. at 421. Ex parte Maddox, a commercial bribery case, the court stated that when one lawyer offers another lawyer an “economic benefit in consideration for the latter‘s breach of a fiduciary duty owed to a client ... is bribery.” 683 S.W.2d 93, 98 (Tex. App.—Austin 1984, pet. ref‘d). The Martinez Court upheld the conviction of a police officer who accepted $150 in lieu of issuing traffic citations. 696 S.W.2d 930, 933 (Tex. App.—Austin 1985, pet. ref‘d). In Gahl v. State, appellant, the Dallas Chief Building Official, was convicted of bribery when he accepted $15,741.44 from an architect in exchange for the approval of a condominium project. 721 S.W.2d 888, 890 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, pet. ref‘d). The Gahl Court also ratified Hubbard‘s definition of bribery as “the conferring of a benefit upon a public servant as consideration for violation of one of his duties.” Id. at 893.
In Mustard v. State, the appellant agreed to pay a deputy marshal $400 dollars for the city‘s computer access codes in order to dismiss tickets, cancel warrants, and enter judgments of not guilty. 711 S.W.2d 71, 73-74 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, pet. ref‘d). In Tweedy v. State, the appellant was convicted of bribery when he offered to pay $200 to a city construction inspector if the inspector would refrain from inspecting his company‘s work. 722 S.W.2d 30, 31 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, pet. ref‘d). In Bush v. State, the appellant was indicted for bribery when he offered and paid $49,999.00 for a probated sentence to the brother of the district attorney of his case. 722 S.W.2d 41, 43-44 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1986), affirmed, 773 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). In Cerda v. State, a municipal court bailiff was convicted of bribery when he agreed to destroy the records of two traffic citations in exchange for a pecuniary benefit. 750 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1988, pet. ref‘d). Appellant, a county sheriff, was convicted of bribery when an associate of his offered the job of deputy sheriff in return for the withdrawal, from the run-off, of his political opponent in the primary. Kaisner v. Texas, 772 S.W.2d 528, 528-29 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1989, pet. ref‘d). In Lima v. State, the appellant was convicted of bribery, when he secured a loan which was payable to the city inspector, who was responsible for overseeing the contract work appellant performed for the city, which later showed the work had not been completed. 788 S.W.2d 629, 630 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1990, pet. ref‘d). In another commercial bribery case, the appellant was convicted for bribery by acquiring plans of specialized machinery parts from his employer and sending them to a third-party manufacturer who paid him for these plans. McGowan v. State, 938 S.W.2d 732, 733 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. granted).
In Watts v. State, appellant, the mother of an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, was convicted of a bribery in which she assisted in the transfer of funds to a correctional officer who illegally provided phones to inmates. No. 09-11-00383-CR, 2012 WL 403859, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 8, 2012, no pet.)(mem. op., not designated for publication). In Reyes v. State, the appellant was found guilty of bribery when he offered to pay a correctional guard in the county jail to smuggle a phone charger into the facility. No. 13-09-00321-CR, 2010 WL 2783747, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 15, 2010, no pet.)(mem. op., not designated for publication). In Wesson v. State, the appellant‘s conviction for bribery was upheld when she accepted $1,000.00 from a taxpayer and issued a refund check to him of $7,183.71 when he owed $14,465.86 in back taxes. No. 12-06-00205-CR, 2008 WL 2221812, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Tyler May 30, 2008, no pet.)(not designated for publication). The Wesson Court explained “the offense of bribery is the conferring of a benefit upon a public servant as consideration for her discretion being improperly applied.” Id. at *5. The Wesson Court citing Cox, stated that “the public places its trust in governmental officials with the expectation that they will exercise the discretion given to them to benefit the citizenry. When that discretion is perverted by a bribe that results in special treatment of one citizen, public trust is corrupted and corroded.” Id., citing Cox, 316 S.W.2d at 894.
In Smith v. State, the court, in a gift by a public servant case, closely examined the definition of benefit in which the appellant, an employee of Texas A & M, and his wife travelled to New York so that he could sign the contract extension between the university and Barnes & Noble. 959 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, pet. ref‘d). The evidence showed that appellant solicited the transportation costs, meal, lodging, and theater tickets for him and his wife that Barnes & Noble provided at no cost. Id. The Court found that the food,
In Valencia v. State, the court wrestled with the definition of bribery when a then sitting county commissioner promised a vote for the appointment of constable to two applicants if they in turn agreed to hire two specific individuals. No. 13-02-020-CR, 2004 WL 1416239, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 24, 2004, pet. ref‘d). The Valencia Court struggled with the definition of pecuniary gain, eventually arriving at the conclusion that the constable‘s salary of $34,800 was a pecuniary gain offered by Commissioner Valencia, through his vote, to the constable-applicants in exchange for the yet unnamed appointed constable‘s commitment to hire the individuals identified by Commissioner Valencia. Id. at *3-*4. The dissent in Valencia argued the benefit was lacking because Valencia‘s vote was not measurable and did not represent any pecuniary gain especially as his vote was only one out of three. Id. at *6.
Statutory Construction
Gándara argues his conduct is not criminal because “there was no quid pro quo exchange benefitting [him]” as required by
Further, to permit a conviction for bribery under such circumstances, according to Gándara, “unreasonably equates public support with pecuniary gain.” Gándara contends that his conviction must fail because the definition of “benefit” under
Questions of statutory construction are questions of law subject to de novo review. Liverman, 470 S.W.3d at 836. The overarching rule of statutory construction is to ascertain legislative intent by giving effect to the plain meaning of the statutory language unless doing so leads to absurd results that the legislature could not possibly have intended. Id. Further, we presume that every word has been used for a purpose and that each word, clause, and sentence should be given effect if reasonably possible. Id.
Applicable Law
The current version of
Under
[I]ntentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another:
(1) any benefit as consideration for the recipient‘s decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter[.]
For purposes of
[A]nything reasonably regarded as pecuniary gain or pecuniary advantage, including benefit to any other person in whose welfare the beneficiary has a direct and substantial interest. [Emphasis added].
Id. citing
Like the term “benefit,” the term “person” has a specialized meaning for purposes of
The phrase “direct and substantial interest” is likewise not statutorily defined. Therefore, this phrase must be given its common meaning. Daniels, 754 S.W.2d at 219. The term “direct” means from “point to point without deviation” and “marked by an absence of an intervening agency, instrumentality, or influence.” Merriam-Webster‘s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 353. Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary 640 (Unabridged Ed. 2002), defines “direct” in part as “transmitted back and forth without an intermediary.”
Therefore, we conclude, “direct and substantial interest,” means the beneficiary‘s interest in the welfare of the other “person” cannot be unbroken by any intermediary or agency, and not speculative or illusory, but of a considerable value.
The indictment charged Gándara with:
[I]ntentionally and knowingly solicit[ing] a benefit ... from Licon Dairies, to wit: public support for the City of Socorro‘s proposed annexation of San Elizario as consideration for the defendant‘s decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, to wit: a city councilmember for the City of Socorro.
While the application paragraph in the jury charge was as follows:
Therefore, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant, JESUS GANDARA AKA JESUS GANDARA, JR., on or about the 25th day of January, 2013, in EL Paso County, TX, did then and there, intentionally or knowingly, solicit a benefit, other than a political contribution as defined by Title 15, Election Code, or an expenditure made and reported in accordance with Chapter 305, Government Code, from Licon Dairies, to-wit: public support for the City of Socorro‘s proposed annexation of San Elizario as consideration for the defendant‘s decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, to wit: a city councilmember for the City of Socorro, then you will find the Defendant, JESUS GANDAR AKA JESUS GANDARA, JR., GUILTY of Bribery as charged in the indictment.
The charge also defined benefit in accordance with definition codified in
Therefore, under the statute, to convict Gándara of bribery, the State must prove that: (1) Gándara intentionally or knowingly solicited or agreed to accept from Licon Dairies; (2) a benefit, that is a pecuniary gain or advantage, to include any benefit to any other person in whose welfare Gándara has a direct and substantial interest; (3) as consideration for his opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a City of Socorro council member. If, as the State argues, “any other person” is the City of Socorro, then the question becomes, was the evidence sufficient to show Gándara had a “direct and substantial interest” in the City of Socorro? Stated another way, was Gándara‘s interest in the welfare of the City of Socorro unbroken by any intermediary or agency, and not speculative or illusory, but of a considerable value?
Discussion
The question of whether the evidence is legally sufficient to convict Gándara as a beneficiary or recipient of a benefit under
Bribery is an offense that perverts the ends of good government by corruptly enriching a public servant in abusing the lawful authority bestowed upon him. As the case law amply demonstrates the benefit is bestowed upon the public servant for the exercise of his discretion in favor of the party who has paid the benefit. However,
For the purposes of our analysis, we assume without deciding that the Licons’ public support possesses some pecuniary gain or advantage to the City of Socorro. States and municipalities routinely pay individuals for endorsements, for example, such as advertisements to promote tourism in their city or state. The public understands these individuals are paid for their support or endorsement of those government entities. Gándara‘s offer of promotional funding to the Licons was akin to paying them to participate in an advertising campaign in which they publically proclaimed their support for the annexation. Thus, it is not beyond the realm of comprehension to cast the Licons’ support or endorsement of the annexation of San Elizario as a pecuniary advantage. Certainly, the evidence shows that Gándara valued it at $80,000.
The State does not argue that Gándara personally stood to benefit financially from the contemplated exchange with the Licons. Neither the State nor Gándara dispute that his conduct was to promote and enhance the City of Socorro, thereby, profiting every property tax-paying citizen by increasing the city‘s tax base, which logically would lead to a diminution of each Socorro resident‘s property tax bill. However, the State presented no evidence that the City of Socorro would, in fact, actually benefit. It could equally be argued that additional expenditures to service the citizens of San Elizario would counter or overwhelm the anticipated San Elizario‘s property tax revenues to Socorro. Consequently, adversely impacting Socorro taxpayers, because they could pay higher property taxes than if the San Elizario annexation had not taken place. Thus, the benefit to the City of Socorro, unsupported by any evidence, renders the benefit to Gándara speculative and illusory.
Second, the benefit to the City of Socorro is tenuous at best and based on a series of stacked inferences. To conclude that the City of Socorro‘s purported benefit would be the direct result of the Licon‘s endorsement is to ignore the political reality of every San Elizario voter. While the Licons believed they were highly regarded in their community that does not automatically transfer into fait accompli the annexation of San Elizario. The Licons acknowledge there was stiff resistance from the residents of San Elizario to the proposed annexation by the City of Socorro. The promotion of the annexation by the Licons could conceivably sway the vote, but the direct benefit to Socorro is broken by each individual voter in San Elizario.
We find that under
It is clear the policy underpinning bribery statutes is to encourage officials to act within “known rules of honesty and integrity.”
Gándara‘s conduct was not a betrayal of the public trust, precisely because he intended to benefit the public he served. The evidence amply demonstrated that Gándara did not promise to violate any duty to his constituency in return for the Licon‘s public endorsement of the proposed annexation of San Elizario. Gándara explicitly refuted the Licon‘s claim that Gándara was seeking or offering a bribe. Gándara did not promise to improperly apply his discretion in advocating for the Licon Dairy promotional funding. Gándara was intending to exercise his discretion to benefit the citizenry of Socorro in accordance with his duty as a city councilman of the City of Socorro. Our laborious recitation of Texas case law highlights that no public official has been prosecuted for a benefit to the constituency that elected him. The case law demonstrates the benefit accrued either to the official, a family member, an associate, or political opponent.
The State‘s argument that Gándara would have profited as a citizen of Socorro because the City of Socorro was the intended beneficiary of the quid pro quo cannot satisfy the statutory definition of
We conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury‘s finding that Gándara was to receive a benefit through another in whose welfare Gándara had a direct and substantial interest. Our disposition of this issue renders Appellant‘s second issue moot.
CONCLUSION
The trial court‘s judgment is reversed and we render a judgment of acquittal.
Jaime E. Gandara, Chief Public Defender, El Paso, TX, for Appellant.
Notes
In support of its contention that Gándara waived appellate review of his assertion that his conduct does not constitute an offense under
Any person who shall, directly or indirectly, offer, give, or promise, any money or thing of value, testimonial, privilege or personal advantage, to any executive or judicial officer or member of the Legislature to influence him in the performance of any of his public or official duties, shall be guilty of bribery, and be punished in such manner as shall be provided by law. And any member of the Legislature or executive or judicial officer who shall solicit, demand or receive, or consent to receive, directly or indirectly, for himself, or for another, from any company, corporation or person, any money, appointment, employment, testimonial, reward, thing of value or employment, or of personal advantage or promise thereof, for his vote or official influence, or for withholding the same, or with any understanding, expressed or implied, that his vote or official action shall be in any way influenced thereby, or who shall solicit, demand and receive any such money or other advantage, matter or thing aforesaid for another, as the consideration of his vote or official influence, in consideration of the payment or promise of such money, advantage, matter or thing to another, shall be held guilty of bribery, within the meaning of the Constitution, and shall incur the disabilities provided for said offenses, with a forfeiture of the office they may hold, and such other additional punishment as is or shall be provided by law.Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 41 .