P v. Trujillo (4th Dist., Div.1): PC 952's Notice Requirement for Pleadings Incorporates the Preliminary Examination Transcript

In part, these defendants were charged, via a complaint, with committing crimes related to low balling their employees' wages on insurance forms in order to reduce their workers' compensation insurance.  The complaint recited the charges in the following form.

"[D]efendants[] SABAS TRUJILLO, LUCIA TRUJILLO and RICK TRUJILLO[] committed a violation of California Insurance Code section 11760, subdivision (a), a felony, in that on or about June 1, 2005 through and including June 1, 2009, . . . they did wilfully and unlawfully make and cause to be made a knowingly false and fraudulent statement, orally and in writing, of a fact material to the determination of the premium, rate, and cost of a policy of workers' compensation insurance, for the purpose of reducing the premium, rate, and cost of the insurance. (California Insurance Company by Prestige Stripping Services, Inc.)" 

Such form, limited to a generic paraphrasing of statutory text, is commonplace.  But in some instances, like here, it doesn't really put the accused on useful notice of what they are accused.  All this tells Trujillo is that the State is accusing her of, on one unspecified day of 1462 possible, making a false statement, in writing or maybe orally, to the insurance company.

So Trujillo demurs to the complaint based on lack of "notice" required by PC 952.  The trial judge ordered the State to narrow down the alleged dates and file an amended complaint.  In an impressive move that reinforces the need to "be careful for what you wish", the wonderfully cheeky deputy DA provided a spreadsheet with over a thousand alleged instances of false statements during the four year period, accompanied by a yet-to-be-filed amended complaint with 1,104 counts.  The deputy DA, admirably, refused to file the amended complaint.  The judge then granted the demurrer.

The State appealed and a Fourth District panel reverses, ordering the complaint be reinstated.  The holding that the complaint was sufficient is based upon the principle that the "notice" requirement of PC 952 takes into consideration the transcript of the preliminary hearing.  Since a complaint is filed before a preliminary hearing occurs, a 952 demurrer is premature in this case.  The opinion points out that it is really the preliminary hearing that provides the functionally useful notice to a defendant as to the specifics of the allegations (in practice the defendant usually finds out well before the preliminary hearing because the State turns over the crime report(s)).  It is an admirably concise and restrained opinion.

As an aside, the next time I hear that Wall Street rogues are not being prosecuted due to the political difficulty of doing so, I'm going to refer the speaker to the Riverside County DA's Economic Crimes Division.  Something tells me the prosecutor in this case who showed up with the 1,104 count complaint, yet refused to file it, isn't easily intimidated.