(a)Every executive or ministerial officer, employee, or appointee of the State of California, a county or city therein, or a political subdivision thereof, who asks, receives, or agrees to receive, any bribe, upon any agreement or understanding that his or her vote, opinion, or action upon any matter then pending, or that may be brought before him or her in his or her official capacity, shall be influenced thereby, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years and, in cases in which no bribe has been actually received, by a restitution fine of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000) or not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or, in cases in which a bribe was actually received, by a restitution fine of at least the actual amount of the bribe received or two thousand dollars ($2,000), whichever is greater, or any larger amount of not more than double the amount of any bribe received or ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whichever is greater, and, in addition thereto, forfeits his or her office, employment, or appointment, and is forever disqualified from holding any office, employment, or appointment, in this state.
(b)In imposing a restitution fine pursuant to this section, the court shall consider the defendant’s ability to pay the fine.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Terry Christensen, 828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 14× “The predicate acts against Arneson were based on California Penal Code § 68, which makes it a felony for either an executive or ministerial officer to “receive[], or agree[] to receive, any bribe, upon any agreement or understanding that his or her vote, opinion, or action upon…”
United States v. Terry Christensen, 801 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 14× “The predicate acts against Arneson were based on California Penal Code § 68, which makes it a felony for either an executive or ministerial officer to “receive[], or agree[] to receive, any bribe, upon any agreement or understanding that his or her vote, opinion, or action upon…”
People v. Gaio, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5037 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
“, and Rick Lynn Hodgin appeal from judgments imposed after a jury convicted them, respectively, of three counts each of receiving a bribe (Pen. Code, § 68; undesignated section references are to that code) and giving a bribe with a value in excess of $400 (§ 67.”
United States v. Clayton R. Jackson, 72 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1995).
“This Court upheld the constitutionality of § 68, saying that “[although the defendant state representative in McCormick was charged with violating the Hobbs Act rather than RICO [with a predicate violation of § 68], the Supreme Court’s decision in that case controls this…”
Knoff v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 1 Cal. App. 3d 184 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969).
“4 In connection with Wolden’s indictment as thus alleged in the petition for writ of mandate, other sources in the record or within our notice establish the following facts: He was indicted on October 10, 1965, on ten counts of accepting bribes (Pen. Code, § 68) and one count of…”
People v. Wolden, 255 Cal. App. 2d 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967).
· cites it 2× “Defendant was indicted on 10 counts of accepting bribes (Pen. Code, § 68) and one count of conspiracy (Pen.”
Skelly v. State Bar, 509 P.2d 950 (Cal. 1973).
· cites it 2× “[3] The Facts This proceeding arises out of petitioner's association with Wolden, who at the time of the events here in question was a member of the State Bar.”
People v. Watson, 15 Cal. App. 3d 28 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971).
“Code, §§ 1090, 1097), and one charge of bribery (Pen. Code, § 68). One conflict-of-interest charge was set aside before trial (Pen.”
People v. Lyon, 288 P.2d 57 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955).
“Count III charges appellant Lyon, defendant Berry, as executive officer, and John Does One to Five, of the crime of asking, receiving and agreeing to receive a bribe by a public officer (Pen. Code, § 68) on or about January 20, 1953 (Patterson transaction).”
People v. Burgess, 338 P.2d 524 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959).
“Appellant was charged in five counts with accepting bribes (Pen. Code, § 68) and in a jury trial was found not guilty on count I and guilty on counts II through V.”
People v. Canard, 257 Cal. App. 2d 444 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967).
“Code, § 67), to ask for and receive bribes for officers, employees and appointees of the City of Los Angeles (Pen. Code, §68), to engage in bookmaking (Pen.”
People v. Gliksman, 78 Cal. App. 3d 343 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978).
“2d 545 ] [Pen. Code, § 68: “asks, receives, or agrees to receive, any bribe, upon any agreement or understanding”].”
— Cal. Penal Code § 68(a) — 1 case
United States v. Terry Christensen, 801 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2015).
“The predicate acts against Arneson were based on California Penal Code § 68, which makes it a felony for either an executive or ministerial officer to “receive[], or agree[] to receive, any bribe, upon any agreement or understanding that his or her vote, opinion, or action upon…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.