STARK v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SUTTER COUNTY
Filed 6/15/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sutter)
----
| ROBERT E. STARK, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SUTTER COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. |
C051073, C051074
(Super. Ct. Nos. CRMS051001, CRMS051031)
|
| RONDA G. PUTNAM, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SUTTER COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. |
C051075
(Super. Ct. No. CRMS051030)
|
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Ted H. Hansen, Judge. Peremptory writ issued.
Rothschild, Wishek, Chastaine & Sands, M. Bradley Wishek; Marilyn Fisher, for Petitioner Robert E. Stark.
Blackmon & Associates, Clyde M. Blackmon, Melinda J. Nye; Marilyn Fisher, for Petitioner Ronda Putman.
Story continue from Part IV ………….
This argument has no bearing on the third count of the indictment because that count did not involve any refusal by Stark to pay a claim against the County. Accordingly, we need not consider this argument further (at least at this point).
iii. Instruction On Mistake Of Fact
Stark next contends the evidence before the grand jury required the prosecution to instruct on the defense of mistake of fact. Essentially, as applied to the third count of the indictment, Stark's claim appears to be that there was evidence he made a reasonable mistake as to his authority to transfer money from the County's general fund to the Waterworks District.
What Stark is really arguing for is a mistake of law defense, not a mistake of fact defense, because the question of whether he had authority to make the transfer is a question of law. Be that as it may, Stark identifies no authority that requires the prosecutor to instruct the grand jury on defenses sua sponte. Indeed, the law is to the contrary.
In People v. Fisk (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 364, this court held that â€
