This appropriation is intended to reimburse expenses related to defense of Mr. Davis against three counts of malfeasance in office. Although Mr. Davis was convicted on one of these counts, this conviction was reversed. 94-276 indicated that the expenditure of state funds for the payment of legal expenses incurred by a former municipal officer is not permissible under the state constitution. Furthermore, the opinion points out that the provisions of state law only authorize state indemnification of state officers and employees. For these reasons, I am returning to you an exact copy of the pages of the Enrolled Bill indicating the foregoing action taken by me.
Present law leaves the matter to the discretion of the court.
Granting a right to bail in this circumstance is undesirable. For this reason, I am returning Senate Bill No. 447 to the Senate. Unfortunately, while the provisions of these bills are similar, they are not identical. Since the house bill was signed into law earlier, to avoid technical conflicts which would arise if both bills were to become law, I am vetoing Senate Bill No. 751 and returning it to the Senate.