## Facts

- San Bernardino County approved a $102 million settlement resolving litigation with Colonies Partners, a development entity associated with Jeffrey Burum.
- Prosecutors alleged Burum sought to secure approval of the settlement by pressuring county supervisors, including Bill Postmus and Paul Biane.
- The prosecution alleged Burum used James Erwin as an intermediary to threaten, intimidate, and coerce supervisors through political tactics and threats tied to local political interests.
- The prosecution alleged Postmus and Biane agreed to support the settlement in exchange for bribes, including payments routed through political committees and other entities.
- After the settlement vote, the prosecution alleged payments were made to entities associated with the officials and others as bribes for past and future official acts.
- Burum and Erwin were charged with bribery-related offenses, including (1) offering/giving bribes, (2) aiding and abetting public officials’ receipt of bribes, and (3) conspiracy to have public officials accept bribes.

## Issues

1. Whether an alleged bribe payor may be charged both with offering/giving a bribe and with aiding and abetting the public official’s receipt of the same bribe.
2. Whether an alleged bribe payor may be charged with conspiracy with the public official to commit the bribery offense.
3. Whether the same charging rules apply to the payor’s alleged agent/intermediary.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s categorical bar on charging the alleged payor (and agent) with aiding and abetting the official’s receipt of a bribe and with conspiracy to commit bribery.
- The court held the bribery statutes do not, by their text or clear implication, exempt bribe payors from general accomplice liability (Penal Code § 31) or conspiracy liability (Penal Code § 182).
- The court directed reinstatement of the dismissed aiding-and-abetting and conspiracy counts and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under Penal Code § 31, all persons “concerned in the commission of a crime,” including aiders and abettors, are principals unless the Legislature clearly indicates otherwise.
- The existence of separate bribery offenses for the giver and the receiver does not itself create an exception that bars charging the giver as an aider and abettor of the receiver’s offense.
- A bribe payor may be liable for aiding and abetting the official’s receipt when the payor’s conduct facilitates or encourages the official’s corrupt acceptance, not merely the transfer of value.
- Conspiracy may be charged in addition to substantive bribery offenses unless the Legislature has expressly or impliedly excluded conspiracy for that crime; bribery is not exempted on the theory that it is inherently bilateral.
- An intermediary acting for the alleged payor is not categorically shielded from aiding-and-abetting or conspiracy charges where the charging allegations otherwise state those forms of liability.

## Conclusion

The court held that California’s general accomplice and conspiracy statutes apply to public-corruption bribery prosecutions so that an alleged bribe payor (and agent) may be charged with offering/giving a bribe and also with aiding and abetting the official’s receipt and conspiring with the official, absent a clear legislative limitation.


People v. Biane, 58 Cal. 4th 381, 315 P.3d 106 (Cal. 2013)