People v. Fujita
| Decision Date | 25 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6125 |
| Citation | 43 Cal.App.3d 454,117 Cal.Rptr. 757 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Tadashi FUJITA and Derek McWhinney, Defendants and Appellants. |
The Mayor and the Planning Commissioner of the City of Westminster were charged with attempting to 'shake down' a prosperous farmer for $10,000 on the pretext of obtaining favorable treatment for him from the Board of Supervisors in connection with the extension of an agricultural lease on a valuable piece of property held by the County of Orange.
The indictment against the mayor (Derek McWhinney) and the commissioner (Tadashi Fujita) contained five felony counts: (1) conspiracy to commit grand theft (Pen.Code, § 182.); (2) attempted grand theft (Pen.Code, §§ 484, 487); (3) conspiracy to commit bribery (Pen.Code, § 182.1); and (4) and (5) solicitation of bribery (Pen.Code, § 653f).
Both officials were convicted by a jury of the two theft counts and acquitted of the three bribery charges. The mayor was sentenced to the state prison for conspiracy to commit grand theft, but was released on bail pending appeal. The commissioner was likewise sentenced to state prison for conspiracy to commit grand theft; however, execution of the sentence was suspended and probation granted on condition that he serve six months in jail and pay a $2,500 fine.
In 1967, the County of Orange acquired a long-term leasehold interest in a large parcel of land in Fountain Valley known as Mile Square from the federal government for the purpose of developing it as a park and recreational area. Inasmuch as long-range planning and substantial revenues would be necessary for construction of the proposed improvements, the county decided to lease the land on a short-term basis for farming purposes. In June 1967, after the usual bidding procedures had been complied with, the county entered into a five-year lease with the sole bidder, George Murai, at an annual rental of $75--$100 per acre. In turn, Murai eventually subleased a portion of the acreage to George Tanaka.
By 1972, Murai was farming about 115 acres and Tanaka about 100. Both raised strawberries, tomatoes, cucumbers and cabbage, with strawberries and tomatoes being the dominant and most lucrative crops.
Murai's lease was to expire on June 30, 1972. With crops still in the ground to be harvested and future plantings to be considered, he began negotiations with the County Department of Real Property Services (RPS) for an extension of his lease.
On June 14, Murai and RPS signed a one-year extension at $150 an acre, with the proviso that the agreement was subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors ('Board'). However, the same day the agreement was signed, RPS informed Murai that the extension 'was off' as a number of people had expressed an interest in the property and the lease would be subject to competitive bidding. But on June 20 the county executed a 'hold-over' agreement granting Murai possession until September 30 so that he and Tanaka could harvest the crops which would still be in the ground when the lease expired on June 30.
The county's decision to place the land up for bid (causing RPS's cancellation of its one-year lease extension with Murai) resulted from the defendant McWhinney's efforts to accomplish that purpose. McWhinney realized that Murai's lease was about to expire inasmuch as he had assisted Murai in getting the lease in the first place. He had been informed that other growers or produce firms were interested in Mile Square.
In January 1972, he got a copy of Murai's lease from RPS. In May or early June, he met with the president of Cal-Fruit, a produce brokerage firm. McWhinney was informed that Cal-Fruit would pay up to $325 an acre for the parcel and that if McWhinney helped Cal-Fruit to obtain the lease at a lower figure, he 'could do what he liked' with the differential under $325.
McWhinney contacted Supervisor Battin's administrative assistant and suggested that Mile Square be broken up and put out to bid for a minimum bid of $250 an acre. The administrative assistant discussed the matter with Battin and Battin was also contacted by McWhinney who lobbied for the breaking up of the property, suggesting it be bid out in parcels.
McWhinney contacted the administrative assistant to Supervisor Ronald Caspers and suggested that it might be beneficial to the county to divide up Mile Square in order to allow it to be bid upon by small farmers and thus solicit more competitive bidding. He also spoke to Caspers and pressured him to deny the extension of Murai's lease, split the property and put it up for bid.
On the same day Murai was informed by RPS of the cancellation, McWhinney visited Murai and told him that members of the Board were unhappy that he had not made any campaign contributions; Murai replied he had contributed to Battin's campaign; 1
McWhinney stated, 'I put you in there and I can get you out.' He then left, telling Murai he was going to have lunch with one of the supervisors.
The Board's agenda for June 27 was prepared and included ratification of Murai's three month hold-over agreement and RPS's recommendation that Mile Square be put out for bidding. On that date, the Board approved Murai's three month hold-over agreement and remanded the matter to RPS with instructions to prepare 'bidding packages' for three separate parcels.
The same day, Murai either contacted, or was contacted by, the defendant Tad Fujita--a mutual friend of Murai and McWhinney. 2 Murai wanted to know what McWhinney was up to. Fujita and Murai met at a coffee shop. Fujita told Murai that McWhinney could make it 'tough' for him because of his political influence with the supervisors if he did not cooperate.
On July 7, 1972, Murai again met with Fujita at the same coffee shop. Their conversation may be capsulized as follows: Fujita suggested Murai should do what McWhinney wanted and make out a $5,000 check payable to Supervisor Battin and also give McWhinney $5,000 in cash; Fujita said McWhinney knew the right people and $10,000 wasn't a lot of money in view of what it would cost Murai to meet the cost of the proposed bid (the $250 an acre minimum bid amounted to a $20,000 increase over the $150 per acre provided in the aborted extension agreement); Fujita warned Murai not to contact the District Attorney since he and McWhinney both knew Cecil Hicks (the D.A.).
In late June or early July, Murai reported the affair to the district attorney's office. On July 19, 1972, he appeared before the Orange County Grand Jury and agreed to make phone calls to the defendants and have the same recorded. As a result, several calls were made, recorded and transcribed.
On July 20, Murai phoned McWhinney and they agreed to meet at a Westminster coffee shop the following morning. Through prearrangement with Murai, a district attorney's investigator was present in the next booth. The investigator overheard the following portions of the conversation and took notes of the conversation on napkins: Murai and McWhinney talked about 'supervisors' and 'land'; Murai said that the land was worth nothing; McWhinney replied it was good berry land; McWhinney said, 'You recall when I first talked to you about the property?' and 'You still need the property'; Murai said he had already contributed to Battin's campaign; McWhinney said Murai should give the money to Fujita; when Murai asked if the money would be returned if the Board did not approve the lease, McWhinney assured him 'It can be taken care of'; Murai said he would call Fujita and get details arranged.
On July 21, Murai called Fujita; Fujita said that McWhinney had given him instructions, but complained that he wasn't getting anything out of it and should charge the other two something for his time and efforts as a middleman; Murai stated it was a rotten deal; Fujita said, 'I've always believed in you scratch my back and I'll scratch your back, you know, when necessary.'
Following the telephone conversation of July 21, Murai and Fujita met: Fujita told Murai to put $5,000 in cash in an envelope and take it to Fujita's office; he also told Murai to include a letterhead from Murai Farms so McWhinney could write a letter on his behalf to the supervisors. 3
On July 24 (11:50 a.m.), Murai called McWhinney; Murai said he had talked to Fujita and Fujita wanted $5,000 in cash and the letterhead; McWhinney replied that Murai should work it out with Fujita and '. . . I'm not going to get involved . . . in anything at all.' The letter to the supervisors was also discussed but McWhinney refused to discuss money.
At 3:53 p.m. Murai and Fujita talked by phone. Their conversation was as follows: Fujita indicated he thought McWhinney could help Murai, but that McWhinney was worried that Murai was '. . . going to try to pull a fast one . . .' by going to the grand jury; Fujita said he tried to reassure McWhinney that Murai would not take such a course of action and claimed that he told McWhinney that Murai '. . . can't afford it . . . he's just as guilty as you (McWhinney) are if something goes wrong. . . .' Fujita further told Murai
Following the foregoing conversation, Murai took $5,000 in cash in a Murai...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rodriguez
...§ 1500), but that objection is unavailable since there is no claim that the transcript is inaccurate. (People v. Fujita (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 454, 473, 117 Cal.Rptr. 757.) Without assessing the theoretical soundness of the stated reason for the court's ruling, we are satisfied that exclusion......
-
Jackson v. Superior Court of Contra Costa Cnty.
...grand jury, so long as the minimum number of jurors who heard all of the evidence concur in the indictment. ( People v. Fujita (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 454, 477, 117 Cal.Rptr. 757 [indictment not invalid where "at least 12 grand jurors heard all the evidence"].)Grand jurors are selected by the ......
-
People v. Jones
...at p. 955, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 921 ; Brown , at p. 599, 275 Cal.Rptr. 268 ; Miley , at p. 36, 204 Cal.Rptr. 347 ; People v. Fujita (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 454, 472–473, 117 Cal.Rptr. 757.) Moreover, defense counsel did not, as far as we can tell, request any specific changes to the transcript.Final......
-
People v. Hartley
...P.2d 271.) “Proof of a false representation may be established by either words or conduct, or by both.” (People v. Fujita (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 454, 467, 117 Cal.Rptr. 757 (Fujita ).) Yet “the defendant's intent must be proved in both instances by something more than mere proof of nonperform......