People v. Chacon

Citation40 Cal.4th 558,53 Cal.Rptr.3d 876,150 P.3d 755
Decision Date08 February 2007
Docket NumberNo. S125236.,S125236.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Maria Socorro CHACON, Defendant and Respondent.

Steve Cooley, District Attorney, George M. Palmer, Head Deputy District Attorney, Patrick D. Moran, Brent Riggs, Brentford J. Ferreira and Phyllis C. Asayama, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Nasatir, Hirsch, Podberesky & Genego, Michael D. Nasatir, Santa Monica, Tariq A. Khero; and John L. Ryan, for Defendant and Respondent.

Michael P. Judge, Public Defender (Los Angeles) and John Hamilton Scott, Deputy Public Defender, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

CORRIGAN, J.

Maria Chacon was charged with violating Government Code section 1090 by holding a financial interest in a contract made by the public agency of which she was a member.1 The trial court ruled in limine that defendant could assert the defense of entrapment by estoppel. As a result, the People announced they could not proceed and the court dismissed the case under Penal Code section 1385.2 On appeal, the People challenged the recognition of entrapment by estoppel, a question of first impression. The Court of Appeal held it was error to allow the defense, and reversed the dismissal order. We granted defendant's petition for review to consider two issues: 1) whether, on appeal from a pretrial dismissal, the People may obtain review of a ruling that assertedly rendered them unable to proceed; and 2) whether the entrapment by estoppel defense is available under the circumstances of this case.

We conclude that an in limine ruling may be reviewed on appeal from a dismissal. Further, an entrapment by estoppel defense is not available in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3

Defendant, while a member of the Bell Gardens City Council, sought and obtained appointment as city manager. Her conduct in securing that position resulted in criminal charges under Government Code section 1090.

Defendant solicited the support of fellow councilmember Rogelio Rodriguez, advising him of her desired salary and terms. However, the Bell Gardens Municipal Code provided that a councilmember was ineligible for appointment for one year following his or her departure from the council. City Attorney Arnoldo Beltran drafted an ordinance eliminating the waiting period, and Councilmember Pedro Aceituno placed it on the council agenda. Defendant joined the other councilmembers in voting unanimously for the ordinance.

The council met in a special closed session to choose a city manager. Defendant excused herself from this session, but remained in a nearby office. During a break, City Attorney Beltran asked Councilmember Aceituno to meet with defendant and the mayor to discuss defendant's appointment and contract terms. After Aceituno returned to the session, the council approved defendant's appointment, but modified her requested terms. The council then announced its decision in a public session. Defendant accepted the appointment, resigned from the council and signed an employment contract, approved by Beltran.

Defendant was charged with violating Government Code section 1090 because, as a city councilmember, she had "participated in making or causing to be made ... for the Bell Gardens City Council [an employment contract] in which she was financially interested or had the expectation of financial interest." By pretrial motion, defendant informed the court she sought to call Beltran as a witness. She represented that Beltran advised her on the legality of her efforts to become city manager and was actively involved in the appointment process. Concerned that Beltran might invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify, defendant asked the court to grant him use immunity. By separate motion, the prosecutor sought to exclude evidence of Beltran's advice as irrelevant, arguing that because defendant was charged with a general intent crime, advice of counsel was not a defense.

On the eve of trial, defendant advised the court that she intended to assert the defense of "entrapment by estoppel." Citing United States v. Tallmadge (9th Cir. 1987) 829 F.2d 767, she contended that the defense, based on federal due process, applied because she relied on advice from a government official that her conduct was legal. The court declined to confer immunity on the city attorney, and took the novel question of the defense under submission.

The court ultimately denied the motion to exclude evidence of Beltran's advice and ruled that defendant could present evidence of entrapment by estoppel. The court expressed doubt that a city official's advice could bind the state, but felt compelled to follow Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 559, 85 S.Ct. 476, 13 L.Ed.2d 487. In Cox, the United States Supreme Court reversed a conviction because the defendant had acted at the direction of the local police chief. Applying Cox, the court ruled that it would "permit" the defense, noting the jury must determine whether defendant reasonably relied on Beltran's advice.

The prosecutor called the ruling a "devastating development," and asked for a continuance to seek writ review. Defendant objected that she was ready for trial immediately. The court agreed that its recognition of entrapment by estoppel in these circumstances was a "fair question for appeal," but expressed concern at granting a continuance over defendant's objection.

When the prosecutor asked whether the court intended to instruct on the newly recognized defense, the court replied that it would do so if warranted by the evidence. The prosecutor responded, "[T]he People are announcing that we're going to be unable to proceed to trial." The court then dismissed the case under section 1385.4

The trial court incorporated its ruling in the minutes: "The court denies the People's motion to exclude testimony regarding advice of counsel to defendant by the Bell Gardens City Attorney. As a general matter, advice of counsel is not a defense in actions under Government Code 1090 and 1097," which the court determined were general intent crimes.5 "However, in this case defendant has asserted the defense of entrapment by estopp[el]." The minutes also reflect that the court had "not settle[d] upon the language of any jury instructions, but if defendant's evidence established the necessary elements of the defense the court would give the jury an appropriate instruction. The People then announced they were unable to proceed."

The People appealed under section 1238, subdivision (a)(8) (hereafter section 1238(a)(8)) from "the orders denying the People's motion to exclude evidence and dismissing the case...." The Court of Appeal considered the merits of the in limine ruling. It assumed without deciding that the defense of entrapment by estoppel is recognized in California and that defendant would present sufficient evidence at trial to warrant an appropriate instruction. Unlike the trial court, the Court of Appeal distinguished Cox v. Louisiana, supra, 379 U.S. 559, 85 S.Ct, 476, 13 L.Ed.2d 487, on the basis that the police official in Cox was responsible for administering and enforcing the particular statute at issue. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Bell Gardens City Attorney has neither enforcement nor regulatory authority over criminal conflict of interest statutes. Thus, as a matter' of law, the city attorney did not have the power to bind the state to an erroneous interpretation of the conflict of interest statutes. The Court of Appeal reversed the order of dismissal. It then directed the trial court to exclude evidence of, and deny instruction on, the defense.

II. DISCUSSION
A. Consideration of the In Limine Ruling

Defendant claims that although the judgment of dismissal was "technically" appealable, the Court of Appeal improperly considered the underlying in limine ruling. Defendant urges the People could obtain appellate review of that ruling only in conjunction with a defense appeal following her conviction. (§ 1252.)6

The prosecution's right to appeal in a criminal case is strictly limited by statute. (People v. Williams (2005) 35 Cal.4th 817, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 29, 110 P.3d 1239.) Long standing authority requires adherence to these limits even though the "the People may thereby suffer a wrong without a remedy." (People v. Superior Court (Howard) (1968) 69 Cal.2d 491, 499, 72 Cal.Rptr. 330, 446 P.2d 138.) The circumstances allowing a People's appeal are enumerated in section 1238.

The People relied on subdivision (a)(8) of section 1238, which allows appeal from "[a]n order or judgment dismissing or otherwise terminating all or any portion of the action including such an order or judgment after a verdict or finding of guilty or an order or judgment entered before the defendant has been placed in jeopardy or where the defendant has waived jeopardy." The trial court dismissed the action in the interest of justice under section 1385 before jeopardy attached. The question here is the permissible scope of review on the People's appeal.

Both defendant and the People agree that the in limine ruling was the focus of the People's appeal. The subsequent dismissal merely followed the People's declared inability to proceed because of the in limine ruling. The Court of Appeal reasoned that "if the case against Chacon goes forward to trial, the entrapment by estoppel defense is allowed, and she is acquitted, the People could not appeal because jeopardy would have attached. This places the People in an impossible position because they could not have obtained appellate review to determine whether the defense of entrapment by estoppel is cognizable."

The Court of Appeal properly relied on the long-established rule that if a trial court dismisses a case because the People announce they cannot proceed in light of a pretrial ruling, the prosecution...

To continue reading

Request your trial
55 cases
  • People v. Saibu
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 26, 2022
    ......Salgado (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 5, 11, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 373 ( Salgado ).) The statutory circumstances permitting the People's appeal are specified in section 1238. ( People v. Chacon (2007) 40 Cal.4th 558, 564, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 876, 150 P.3d 755.) Section 1238, subdivision (a)(6) permits the People to appeal from "[a]n order modifying the verdict or finding by reducing the degree of the offense or the punishment imposed or modifying the offense to a lesser offense." ( § 1238, ......
  • San Diegans for Open Gov't v. Pub. Facilities Fin. Auth. of San Diego
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 26, 2019
    ......(See, e.g., People v. Superior Court ( Sahlolbei ) (2017) 3 Cal.5th 230, 235, 243, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 396 P.3d 568 [discussing a case in which the counterparty to a ...Chacon (2007) 40 Cal.4th 558, 570, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 876, 150 P.3d 755 ; see § 1097, subd. (a).) This heightened mens rea requirement leaves a swath of ......
  • People v. Bradley
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 1, 2012
    ......         The premise of the defense of entrapment by estoppel is that “the government may not actively provide assurances that conduct is lawful, then prosecute those who act in reasonable reliance on those assurances.” ( People v. Chacon (2007) 40 Cal.4th 558, 568, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 876, 150 P.3d 755.) It is a narrow exception, ( id. at p. 569, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 876, 150 P.3d 755), and is inapplicable here because Johnson and Adams, even if they provided authorization to Bradley and Rahh for certain expenditures, had no power to ......
  • Nazir v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 2022
    ... 79 Cal.App.5th 478 294 Cal.Rptr.3d 681 Rehan NAZIR, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest. B310806 Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California. Filed June 2, 2022 Okabe & Haushalter, Mark Haushalter, ...(See People v. Chacon (2007) 40 Cal.4th 558, 561, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 876, 150 P.3d 755 [after the trial court ruled for the defendant on a motion in limine, the People 79 ......
  • 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