Client Outcomes

Stanislaus Deputy Not Guilty of Misappropriation Charges

By Paul Q. Goyette Goyette & Associates, Inc.

A Stanislaus County jury of eight women and four men took just two and one half hours to find Deputy Bart Conner not guilty of felony charges that he misappropriate monies from the City of Hughson while serving as that City’s mayor.

Deputy Conner’s case underscores the potential minefield that police officers enter when they are elected or appointed to any type of public office. Deputy Conner, a ten year veteran of the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department and Detective was elected as mayor of the City of Hughson in 2000 and re-elected in 2002. Deputy Conner obtained approval from the Sheriff’s Department to run for office and the Sheriff’s work extensively with Deputy Conner to coordinate his work schedule as a detective with his duties of mayor.

Deputy Conner’s problems began when the City obtained credit cards for the mayor, city manager, city clerk and other members of the city council. When City Manager Bob Wilburn, arrived in the summer of 2001, he thought it was a good idea to get credit cards City officials could more conveniently carry out City business. At the time the City received credit cards it had no credit card policy or other rules or regulations as to how the credit cards were to be used. In addition, Deputy Conner and the City Council members were not put through any type of training regarding how and when they could use the City credit card.

Beginning in about March of 2002, Deputy Conner began using the City credit card for personal purchases. It was Deputy Conner’s understanding that he was authorized to use the City credit card for personal transactions as long as he repaid those monies to the City. Between March of 2002 and January 2003, Deputy Conner made approximately 50 purchases that were either personal in nature or partially personal in nature. Many of the charges were lunches and dinners that Deputy Conner believed may have been for City related business. However, Deputy Conner did not retain receipts or any other records for those meals. During this time period Deputy Conner made two payments to the City for his personal use of the credit card. Many of Deputy Conner’s personal transactions were made during travel on behalf of the City where Deputy Conner took his son and mixed in vacation time with his son along with the City related business. Deputy Conner’s last personal purchase was in January 2003.

In April, 2003, the Vice Mayor of the City contacted Deputy Conner and asked Deputy Conner whether he had repaid all of his personal charges to the City. The Vice Mayor and Deputy Conner then reviewed all of the credit card statements in question. Deputy Conner had never seen the credit card statements nor was he ever billed directly for his personal charges. The Vice Mayor and Deputy Conner discovered that he had not in fact repaid all of the personal purchases to the City. Shortly, thereafter, Deputy Conner repaid the monies to the City with interest that was calculated by the City Attorney.

In June, 2003, the District Attorney’s office began an investigation as to whether Deputy Conner embezzled monies from the City. Deputy Conner met with the District Attorney’s investigators numerous times and repeatedly explained that he believed he had authorization to use the credit card as long as he repaid the monies. He also provided proof that he had repaid the monies to the City with interest.

After a lengthy investigation the District Attorney’s office charged Deputy Conner with a felony violation of Penal Code § 424(a)(1). PC § 424 is entitled embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds. However, unlike traditional embezzlement described in PC § 503 and § 504. PC § 424 does not require fraudulent intent where Deputy Conner would have to have intended to defraud the City of Hughson. Rather, PC § 424 is a general intent criminal which means that Deputy Conner’s state of mind or misunderstanding about this authorization to use the credit card for personal transaction was irrelevant. Deputy Conner found this to be particularly shocking since the City Manager told him specifically at the time the credit cards were issued that he could use his credit card for personal purchases as long as he repaid the City.

Penal Code § 424 can be a well hidden trap for any government official or employee who is entrusted with the safekeeping of public monies whether it be actual cash or, like Deputy Conner, credit cards. Since its passage over 100 years ago, PC § 424 has been applied to hold public officials to an extremely high standard. In some cases, it resembles a strict liability crime which makes ones conduct illegal even if that person has no reasonable idea they were committing a crime. Put another way, if a government official uses government money for any personal reason, even if the government official repays those monies and the governmental entity suffers no harm that still may be a felony violation of PC § 424. The stakes are especially high for a peace officer who would be precluded from working with any felony conviction.

At trial, Deputy Conner was able to present numerous undisputed points of evidence that supported his honest belief he was authorized to use the City credit card for personal purchases. The evidence ranged from the City Manager’s statement to Deputy Conner authorizing his use of the credit card to the fact that Deputy Conner used the credit card openly and made no effort to conceal what he was doing. Deputy Conner was also involved in programs with the City where the City purchased him a computer and a cell phone for his son and then deducted the costs of those items every month from his City paycheck.

Deputy Conner was assisted at trial by the character evidence testimony of Sheriff Les Weidman and Chief Art Voortman. Both testified that Deputy Conner had the highest reputation for honesty and integrity. Finally, Deputy Conner testified and explained each personal transaction to the jury. Deputy Conner testified that based on numerous factors he honestly believed he was authorized to use the City credit for personal purchases as long as he repaid the money to the City. Deputy Conner conceded in retrospect he should have been much more careful with his personal use of the credit card. Deputy Conner’s attorney, Paul Q. Goyette argued that the case should never have been charged in the first place. While Deputy Conner may have been guilty of poor judgment he was certainly not guilty of committing a crime, let alone a felony. The evidence was undisputed regarding the numerous factors that led Deputy Conner to believe he had authorization to use the credit card for personal transaction.

The jury deliberated for just two and one half hours before returning a verdict of “not guilty” to Deputy Conner. The stakes were extremely high for Deputy Conner. Had he been convicted, he may have faced possible prison sentence and most definitely would have lost his job as a deputy. Deputy Conner said,”I honestly believed I had authorization to use the credit card in the way I did. At the time I did not think it was a problem. In retrospect, I recognize I should have been much more careful and thoughtful about what I was doing. I am just thankful I can continue my career in law enforcement.” Deputy Conner plans on finishing his term as mayor through 2004 and then will focus his attention exclusively on his law enforcement career.

Paul Q. Goyette is the managing partner of Goyette & Associates, Inc., which specializes in the representation of public safety employees and their associations in numerous types of legal matters, throughout northern and central California.