People v. Diedrich

Decision Date06 May 1982
Docket NumberCr. 22045
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 643 P.2d 971 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ralph A. DIEDRICH et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Keith C. Monroe, Monroe & Riddet, Santa Ana, for defendants and appellants.

KAUS, Justice.

Ralph Diedrich, a former member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, appeals from a conviction of two counts of bribery (Pen.Code, § 165), and one count of conspiracy to commit bribery (Pen.Code, § 182, subd. 1). Leroy Rose appeals from a conviction on the conspiracy count.

I FACTS--OUTLINE

In 1970, the Grant Corporation (Grant) acquired a 4,200-acre parcel known as Anaheim Hills, and formed Anaheim Hills Incorporated (AHI) to develop the land. About half of this parcel was the subject of an agricultural preserve agreement, negotiated by the previous owner under the Williamson Act. (Gov.Code, § 51200 et seq.; see generally Sierra Club v. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal.3d 840, 850-853, 171 Cal.Rptr. 619, 623 P.2d 180.) Under that act landowners can enter into agreements with local governments, which, in exchange for substantial tax benefits, limit the use of the land to agricultural purposes. The agreements last a minimum of 10 years, but can be cancelled if approved by the governmental body having jurisdiction--in this case the Orange County Board of Supervisors. When Grant purchased Anaheim Hills, the agricultural preserve agreement had seven more years to run. The corporation's management wanted to remove the land from the preserve and build on it as soon as possible because the land was highly leveraged; interest payments alone totaled about $7,000 a day.

Ralph Diedrich was elected to the Orange County Board of Supervisors in November 1972. Shortly after his election he met with Richard Owen, president of Grant. 1 Owen explained his company's desire to remove the land from the preserve and sought Diedrich's help. About the same time, Leroy Rose requested a luncheon meeting with William Stark, president of AHI. Rose was an architect/land planner, Diedrich's personal friend and his campaign finance chairman. Rose and Stark discussed the possibility of meeting with Diedrich, and Rose mentioned that he was interested in selling a piece of property in Fullerton to AHI.

On January 16, 1973, Diedrich and Rose met with Owen and Stark, toured Anaheim Hills, and dined at the Jolly Fox Restaurant. During dinner, Owen explained the merits of removing his company's parcel from the agricultural preserve, and Rose attempted to sell the Fullerton land to Owen. Owen testified that one of the defendants suggested that if Owen purchased the Fullerton land, "it would materially help ... getting Anaheim Hills out of the agricultural preserve." Diedrich or Rose acknowledged that the price of the Fullerton land was about $150,000 over market, but suggested that AHI could break even by building on the property. According to Owen, Stark left the table exclaiming, "This is getting too heavy for me." Neither Grant nor AHI bought the Fullerton property.

During the same month, Owen had additional conversations with Diedrich. Diedrich recommended that AHI hire Michael Remington, Diedrich's own attorney, to handle its agricultural preserve problems. Diedrich told Remington that he was referring a very good client with a case of the "$100,000 variety." Diedrich also instructed Remington to handle the case outside of his regular law practice--assertedly because Remington's partner was on the City Council of Orange. Owen and Remington agreed on a fee of about $100,000: a $50,000 retainer, the balance to be billed in monthly installments not to exceed $15,000. 2 Remington personally picked up the $50,000 retainer and deposited it in two newly opened bank accounts. In March 1973, he received two more checks totaling $24,480, which were deposited into one of the accounts.

On March 2, 1973, at Diedrich's request, Remington wrote a $10,000 check on one of the new accounts to Ben Richman, who had asked Diedrich to invest in his sign business. In accordance with Diedrich's request, Remington negotiated and prepared a partnership agreement with Richman in his, Remington's, own name. Richman eventually returned the money to Remington because the agreement was unsatisfactory.

Two weeks later--and again at Diedrich's request--Remington prepared a $30,000 check to Bill Moore to repay a loan owed by Diedrich. Later, Remington also prepared a $25,000 check to Viking Mauna Loa Management Company, a company wholly owned by Diedrich. Diedrich personally picked up both checks.

Remington was ostensibly hired to assist in removing Anaheim Hills from the agricultural preserve. Nevertheless, for the $100,000 he was promised, the only documents he distributed to public bodies were a 17-page background report and accompanying resolution for the Anaheim City Council 3 and a 2-page memo for the Orange County Planning Department. Since the portion of AHI's land in the agricultural preserve was at this point completely within the jurisdiction of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the resolution and report were simply intended to encourage the Anaheim City Council to "urge the County Board of Supervisors to remove the land from the agricultural preserve." Neither Remington nor his employees ever appeared before a public body on behalf of AHI. Former State Senator Carpenter testified, based on his considerable experience as an attorney dealing with real estate transactions and the Williamson Act, that the fee paid to Remington was "way too high."

In May 1973, Grant cut off contact with Remington because Remington had encountered serious personal legal problems. Owen urgently instructed his new attorney to pick up the AHI file because he "didn't want anyone else to get hold of [it]." He testified that he was particularly concerned that the district attorney's office might see it. AHI voided a $27,909 check to Remington, the final payment for Remington's purported legal services. Despite serious financial difficulties, Remington never renewed his request for the money.

On March 6, 1974, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, by a three-to-two vote, agreed to remove Anaheim Hills from the agricultural preserve. The resolution and agreement approved by the board were not prepared by the county counsel as was customary, but furnished by Diedrich. As a condition of releasing the Anaheim Hills land from the agricultural preserve, the agreement required AHI to dedicate to the county a perpetual easement in gross on 954 acres of its land. However, 504 of these acres were not specified in the agreement; AHI retained the right to select these acres in the future--subject to the approval of the county board of supervisors.

About a month after the vote releasing Anaheim Hills from the preserve agreement, Diedrich called Owen and requested a $70,000 loan. Owen refused the loan because Grant was "a public corporation and ... it would not appear proper if we would loan a public official any money ...." He suggested, however, that Diedrich speak to a friend who was a vice-president of Farmers and Merchants Bank. Owen also provided an appraiser, obtained a title report, and analyzed Diedrich's equity in certain collateral. Diedrich obtained an $80,000, 120-day loan from the bank.

From January 1973 through March 1974, Rose had called and written to AHI and Grant many times, requesting architectural and engineering contracts. On March 21, 1974, shortly after the vote releasing Anaheim Hills from the agricultural preserve, a representative of Grant wrote to Rose explaining: "As I've indicated previously, all of our projects are commissioned and there are no new projects in the near future." Nevertheless, in June 1974, AHI's new president, Jack Sickler, hired Rose to develop a "conceptual plan" for the development of a portion of Anaheim Hills. The purpose of the project was ostensibly to demonstrate to the Anaheim City Council that a grading ordinance which it had proposed would "result in an unjustified loss of usable land and would not benefit the city." There was, however, evidence--to be analyzed later--that the project was largely fictitious.

From July through December 1974, AHI paid Rose about $95,000. During the same period, Rose gave $10,000 to Diedrich directly, and wrote checks to Remington totaling $40,000. Remington testified that he cashed these checks and gave most of the money to Diedrich. Of this sum $20,000 was paid to Diedrich on December 31, 1974. An additional $47,338 was paid to Rose from January to September 1975.

THE INDICTMENT

Diedrich was indicted on two counts of bribery (Pen.Code, § 165) and one of conspiracy to commit bribery (Pen.Code, § 182, subd. 1) on December 15, 1977. Count I alleged that Diedrich willfully and unlawfully received, offered to receive, and agreed to receive a bribe on or about the months of January 1973 through April 1973. Count II alleged that Diedrich received, offered to receive, and agreed to receive a bribe on or about December 31, 1974. Count III alleged that Diedrich and Rose entered into a conspiracy to violate section 165 of the Penal Code on or about September 3, 1975, 4 and for three years prior to that date. The jury found Diedrich guilty on all three counts, and Rose guilty of having participated in the conspiracy.

II
A. Sufficiency of The Evidence--Count I

Diedrich contends that the evidence on count I is insufficient to sustain a conviction. We disagree.

Penal Code section 165 states in relevant part: "Every person ... [on] any common council, board of supervisors, or board of trustees of any county, city and county, city, or public corporation ... who receives, or offers or agrees to receive any bribe 5 upon any understanding that his official vote, opinion, judgment, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
331 cases
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 1984
    ...have instructed the jury they had to agree unanimously on at least one of those transactions (e.g., People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 280-283, 182 Cal.Rptr. 354, 643 P.2d 971). People v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 212, at pages 216 to 219, 171 Cal.Rptr. 897, adequately reviews the ......
  • People v. Ferrell, B206803 (Cal. App. 10/28/2009)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 2009
    ...shows more than one act which could constitute the charged offense. (People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 561; People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 280-282.) However, no unanimity instruction is required when the prosecutor elects to rely on specific acts as constituting the charged c......
  • People v. Ramirez
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 9, 1987
    ...Cal.App.3d 458, 471-472, 195 Cal.Rptr. 233, cert. den. 466 U.S. 952, 104 S.Ct. 2156, 80 L.Ed.2d 542; People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.App.3d 263, 280-281, 182 Cal.Rptr. 354, 643 P.2d 971.) These cases refuse to assume that the jury will infer the specific unanimity requirement from other in......
  • Diaz v. Davey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • March 6, 2017
    ...failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless error." (Hernandez, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 577, citing People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 283 (Diedrich).) Additionally, "[w]here the record indicates the jury resolved the basic credibility dispute against the defendant and th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Anti-Corruption Law And The Oil And Gas Industry: Evolutions In Both Demand Vigilance
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • April 22, 2013
    ...2013), http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/us/vast-oil-reserve-may-now-be-within-reach-and-battle-heats-up.html . 56 See People v. Diedrich, 643 P.2d 971 (Cal. 57 N.Y. Penal Law Article 200. 58 25 P.S. § 3543 (2012). The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the su......

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