## Facts

- Robert E. Stark served as Sutter County’s elected auditor-controller, responsible for decisions affecting allocations and expenditures of public funds.
- Following disputes with county officials about public finance matters, the district attorney alleged Stark violated statutes and local rules governing his office.
- A grand jury returned (1) a criminal indictment charging 13 counts under California Penal Code § 424 (misconduct involving public funds) based on acts and omissions from 2003–2005, and (2) a 15-count accusation under Government Code § 3060 alleging willful or corrupt misconduct in office seeking Stark’s removal.
- Stark contended the charged events involved complex transactions handled pursuant to lawful professional judgment and governmental accounting requirements.
- Stark moved under Penal Code § 995 to set aside both the indictment and the accusation, arguing the grand jury was misinstructed on required mental states and that the district attorney’s involvement created an improper conflict and apparent bias.
- The trial court set aside one count but otherwise denied relief; the Court of Appeal set aside additional counts but rejected further challenges, including an asserted lack of authority to attack the accusation based on grand-jury instructional error.
- The California Supreme Court granted review and ultimately affirmed the Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the charged provisions of Penal Code § 424 require specific intent (including intentional violation of a known legal duty) or instead define general intent crimes, and what knowledge (or criminal negligence) as to governing legal requirements must be shown.
2. Whether a defendant may move under Penal Code § 995(a)(1)(B) to set aside an indictment based on grand-jury misinstruction regarding mens rea.
3. Whether “willful or corrupt misconduct in office” under Government Code § 3060 requires proof of a knowing and purposeful refusal to follow the law, and whether the grand jury was misled on that mental state.
4. What standard governs a claim that the district attorney’s participation in the grand-jury process created a disqualifying conflict of interest warranting dismissal of the indictment or accusation.

## Decision

- The court held the four Penal Code § 424 provisions at issue describe general intent offenses.
- For the § 424 provisions that criminalize acting without authority or failing to act as required by law or legal duty, the court required proof the defendant knew, or was criminally negligent in failing to know, the legal requirements governing the act or omission.
- The court held a claim that the grand jury was misinstructed on mens rea may be raised in a motion to set aside an indictment under Penal Code § 995(a)(1)(B) when the error could allow indictment on less than reasonable or probable cause.
- The court declined, on the record presented, to definitively decide whether Government Code § 3060 requires a knowing and purposeful refusal to follow the law, and rejected Stark’s instructional/argument-based challenges to the accusation.
- The court rejected Stark’s claim that the prosecutor’s PowerPoint slides and comments invalidated the grand-jury mental-state instruction.
- The court held that to set aside an indictment or accusation based on an asserted prosecutorial conflict in grand-jury proceedings, the defendant must show a due process violation; Stark did not.
- The court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment, leaving the remaining counts of the indictment and accusation in place.

## Legal Principles

- Penal Code § 424 provisions may be general intent offenses while still requiring, for certain “without authority” or “legal duty” theories, proof the defendant knew or was criminally negligent in failing to know the controlling legal requirements.
- “Criminal negligence” in this context involves a gross deviation from the care a law-abiding public official would exercise in understanding and complying with governing legal duties.
- Penal Code § 995(a)(1)(B) permits challenges to an indictment based on grand-jury misinstruction on mens rea when the error could have affected the probable-cause determination.
- Claims that prosecutorial conflicts tainted grand-jury proceedings require a showing that the defendant’s right to due process was violated; an asserted conflict or appearance of bias alone is insufficient.
- Government Code § 3060 “willful or corrupt misconduct” standards were not definitively resolved on the question whether purposeful refusal to follow the law is required, where the case could be decided on narrower grounds.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court sustained most charges against a county auditor-controller by clarifying that key Penal Code § 424 public-funds offenses are general intent yet may require knowledge or criminal negligence regarding applicable legal duties, confirming that § 995 can reach grand-jury mens rea misinstruction affecting probable cause, and requiring a due process showing to dismiss for asserted prosecutorial conflicts in grand-jury proceedings.


Stark v. Superior Court, 52 Cal. 4th 368 (Cal. 2011)