Lexin v. Sup. Ct., No. S157341

By FindLaw Staff on January 26, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In a prosecution of defendants-board trustees, responsible for administering the City of San Diego's (City) retirement system, for felony violations of state conflict of interest statutes for allegedly voting to authorize an agreement allowing the City to limit funding of its retirement system in exchange for the City's agreeing to provide increased pension benefits to City employees, a court of appeals' denial of defendants' motion to set aside the information against them is reversed and remanded as to five of the six defendants where: 1) with one exception, the defendant trustees' actions fall within statutory exceptions to Government Code section 1090, and accordingly, their motion to dismiss the information against them should have been granted as this case turns on the conclusion that the trustees of the City's retirement system board were not burdened by a conflict of the sort section 1090 prohibits; and 2) the sixth defendant could, on the preliminary hearing record, reasonably be suspected of having obtained a unique, personalized pension benefit as a result of voting to approve the retirement board's contract with the City and such individually tailored benefits pose genuine conflict problems and do not fall under any statutory exception.     

Read Lexin v. Sup. Ct., No. S157341 [HTML]

Read Lexin v. Sup. Ct., No. S157341 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed January 25, 2010


Opinion by Judge Werdeger

For Appellant:   Bonnie M. Dumanis, District Attorney, Stephen R. Robinson, Craig E. Fisher and William J. La Fond, Deputy District Attorneys

For Appellee:   N/A

Copied to clipboard