People v. Becker

Decision Date21 July 1952
Docket NumberCr. 4741
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

S. V. O. Prichard, Beverly Hills, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Dan Kaufmann, Deputy Atty. Gen., S. Ernest Roll, Dist. Atty. of Los Angeles County, and Marcus R. Brandler and Thomas P. Finnerty, Jr., Deputy Dist. Attys., Los Angeles, for respondent.

DRAPEAU, Justice.

The Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles contracts with private corporations for the transportation of children to and from the city schools. In 1950 and in 1951 the Board made three such contracts with Landier Management Company. Other such contracts were made during, before, and after the period mentioned, with which we are not concerned in this case.

The contracts here under consideration required the Landier Management Company to insure its busses against public liability and property damage, and for workmen's compensation. The company procured this insurance.

Commissions on the premiums under two of the contracts were paid to three insurance brokers, who shared them equally. One of these brokers was Mr. Roy J. Becker, who was a member of the Board of Education when the contracts were made. No commissions had been paid on the third contract when this case developed.

The premiums were computed upon the gross income of Landier Management Company under the contracts. Thus as the gross income increased, the premiums, and that part of the commissions paid to Mr. Becker, increased.

The Grand Jury presented an accusation of wilful and corrupt misconduct in office against Mr. Becker for his part in the above transactions. Section 3072 of the Government Code provides that if such an accusation is found true by the Superior Court the accused shall be removed from office.

The trial judge found the accused guilty and adjudged his removal from office. Mr. Becker appealed from the judgment, and then resigned. Motion to dismiss the appeal was denied by this Court. So the case is now before us upon the merits.

On behalf of Mr. Becker this is to be said: He was and is a man of unquestioned honesty and integrity. He is a layman, not an attorney. He has been in the insurance business for many years. He was a member of the Board of Education for many years. And for many years he was insurance broker for the Landier companies, and wrote insurance of every kind here involved--all without question as to the propriety of his serving on the Board of Education and at the same time acting as insurance broker for transportation companies contracting with the Board.

When charges were made that it was unlawful for him to participate in insurance premiums of the Landier companies in their contracts with the Board of Education, Mr. Becker talked with a lawyer, a deputy of the Los Angeles County Counsel, assigned to advise the Board of Education. That lawyer advised Mr. Becker several times that in his opinion his conduct was not illegal--at least from the facts as the lawyer understood them. And in discussions among members of the Board of Education, two of them lawyers, the same opinion was expressed in the presence of Mr. Becker.

Mr. Becker earnestly argues that he was not guilty of wilful or of corrupt misconduct in office, and that he should not have been branded as criminally corrupt. The argument has a genuine appeal to the sympathies of this Court.

However, the phrase 'wilful or corrupt misconduct in office' does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intention. It means 'simply a purpose or willingness to commit the act',--'a wrongful design to acquire or cause some pecuniary or other advantage to the person guilty of the act'. Penal Code, section 7, subds. 1 and 3; People v. Harby, 51 Cal.App.2d 759, 767, 125 P.2d 874. As Mr. Presiding Justice Moore says in People v. Pearson, 111 Cal.App.2d 9, 244 P.2d 35, 42: 'The mere doing of an act forbidden by the statute is the sum total of the judgment against him.'

In any event, and wherever our sympathies may lie, this Court is bound by the findings made and the inferences drawn from the facts...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Steiner v. Superior Court, s. G019753
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 26, 1996
    ...... William STEINER, Petitioner, . v. . The SUPERIOR COURT of Orange County, Respondent; . The PEOPLE, Real Party In Interest. . Roger STANTON, Petitioner, . v. . The SUPERIOR COURT of Orange County, ... (Id. at pp. 767-768, 125 P.2d 874.) In People v. Becker (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 324, 246 P.2d 103, Becker received portions of insurance premiums for ......
  • People v. Hale
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 5, 1965
    ......Becker, 112 Cal.App.2d 324, 326, 246 P.2d 103); and as is said in Coffey v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 147 Cal. 525, 529, 82 P. 75, 76: . 'The ......
  • Boags v. Municipal Court, B030243
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 18, 1987
    ......PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest. No. B030243. Court of Appeal, Second District, ... (See People v. Harby (1942) 51 Cal.App.2d 759, 767, 125 P.2d 874; People v. Becker (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 324, 326, 246 P.2d 103; People v. Mullin (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 479, 485, 17 ......
  • Los Angeles City School Dist. of Los Angeles County v. Landier Management Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 9, 1960
    ...... Much of the then pertinent law is discussed in People v. Becker, 1952, 112 Cal.App.2d 324, 246 P.2d 103, and People v. Elliott, 1953, 115 Cal.App.2d 410, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT