Facts
- Maria Socorro Chacon served on the Bell Gardens City Council and sought appointment as city manager.
- The municipal code made a sitting councilmember ineligible for appointment as city manager for one year after leaving office.
- The city attorney drafted, and a councilmember placed on the agenda, an ordinance eliminating the one-year waiting period.
- Chacon voted with the council to adopt the ordinance eliminating the waiting period.
- The council later met in closed session to select a city manager; Chacon excused herself from the session but remained nearby.
- During a break, the city attorney asked a councilmember to meet with Chacon and the mayor to discuss Chacon’s appointment and contract terms.
- The council approved Chacon’s appointment with modified terms, and Chacon resigned from the council upon accepting the position.
- Chacon’s employment contract, approved by the city attorney, gave her compensation and benefits constituting a financial interest in the contract.
Issues
- Whether, after a pretrial dismissal under Penal Code § 1385, the prosecution may obtain appellate review of an in limine ruling that allegedly made it unable to proceed.
- Whether entrapment by estoppel is available to a defendant charged under Government Code § 1090 based on reliance on a city attorney’s advice that the defendant’s conduct and contract were lawful.
Decision
- The California Supreme Court held that an in limine ruling may be reviewed on appeal from a dismissal entered after the prosecution elects dismissal to secure review.
- The court held that entrapment by estoppel was not available on these facts because the city attorney lacked authority to bind the state regarding the meaning and enforcement of Government Code § 1090.
- The court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment reversing the § 1385 dismissal.
Legal Principles
- When the prosecution appeals a pretrial dismissal under Penal Code § 1238(a)(8), it may obtain review of a related in limine ruling that effectively prevented it from proceeding, so long as the prosecution accepted dismissal as the mechanism for obtaining review.
- Entrapment by estoppel is a narrow due process defense requiring an affirmative assurance of legality by an official with authority over interpretation or enforcement of the law at issue, and reasonable reliance on that assurance.
- Advice from a local city attorney about compliance with a statewide conflict-of-interest statute does not constitute an authoritative governmental assurance that can estop the state from enforcing Government Code § 1090.
Conclusion
The court permitted appellate review of an in limine ruling following a prosecution-requested § 1385 dismissal and rejected entrapment by estoppel where the defendant relied on a city attorney’s advice about a state conflict-of-interest statute, because the attorney lacked authority to bind the sovereign enforcing that law.