Source: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-hubbard-34483
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:23:32+00:00

Document:
form: section 424(a) 1, section 424(a) 3, etc.
in accordance with the law, we hold the evidence was sufficient.
guilty on the third. The following facts emerged at trial.
use those funds on behalf of the students they serve.
he had familiarized himself with the rules governing superintendents.
the prosecution‘s case against him.
sentences. Hubbard wrote: ―Please note that effective September 1, 2005, Ms.
firm up until fall 2005.
performed following the construction management firm‘s termination.
he had written them, to be unusual.
closed and open sessions of the regular Board meetings.
in the packet of materials the Board would receive prior to each meeting.
either the auto allowance or the stipend.
indicating that the Board had ever approved these payments.
―some degree of control over public funds‖ in his role as superintendent.
the conclusion that Hubbard was so charged.
effect to the Legislature‘s intended purpose in enacting the law. (See People v.
disbursement of public moneys,‖ and (2) every other person so charged.
officers subject to section 424.
keeping, and disbursement of the public revenue.‖ (Code commrs. note foll. Ann.
In reaching our conclusion, we find the statutory context illuminating.
words, is that it is not enough that one simply be a public officer. (See Stark v.
profit out of, or uses the same for any purpose not authorized by law; or, [¶] 3.
inferences about the Legislature‘s purpose in enacting section 424. (See People v.
degree of responsibility over public funds.
moneys. The charging document did not allege that Hubbard was an officer.
the property of said State, county, or Corporate body‖ is guilty of a crime. (Stats.
those four laws, the 1851 Act, section 1, which applied to ―[public] officer[s] . . .
public funds lends additional support to our adoption of Hubbard‘s interpretation.
to the jury that he was so charged.
evidence failed to establish that he was so charged. We disagree.
when viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment below. (See People v.
determine whether the prosecution established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
their ―receipt,‖ ―safekeeping,‖ or ―transfer.‖ (See Black‘s Law Dict. (10th ed.
funds depends on actual function as much as — if not more than — formal title.
of subordinate employees. (Cf. Henry J. Kaiser Co. v. Industrial Accident Com.
over public funds that will satisfy the standard we have articulated.
financial and budgetary reports to the school district‘s governing board. (Ed.
the law, he had familiarized himself with the rules governing superintendents.
obligations with respect to public funds.
enter the information upon which disbursement decisions would be made.
practical realities of governance that properly inform the standard we adopt.
authority that confers some degree of material control over the funds‘ disposition.
Hillel Chodos and Philip Kaufler for Defendant and Appellant.
E. Reynolds and Dana Muhammad Ali, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
SCOCAL, People v. Hubbard , S216444 available at: (https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-hubbard-34483) (last visited Sunday April 21, 2019).

References: v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.