In a case of interest and importance to municipal officials in Pennsylvania (Commonwealth v. Moran), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from a township official’s bribery conviction in connection with a sale of township-owned real estate.
According to the trial judge, Mr. Moran had served for many years as a township commissioner. In connection with a sale of certain township-owned real estate, Mr. Moran had a telephone conversation with the developer to whom the real estate was to be sold. In that conversation, Moran said words to the effect that, if the purchase price was increased by $500,000, the zoning process would be expedited. According to the trial judge, Moran off-handedly used the word “extortion” during the call.
Following investigation by the Attorney General’s office, Moran was charged with, among other offenses, bribery in official and political matters. Following a jury trial, Moran was found guilty as charged, and the trial court imposed a sentence of six months’ probation and a fine of $10,000.
Two important points that Moran made in his defense were first, that he received no personal gain from any increase in the purchase price, hence any gain would have gone to the township which he served as a political officer. Second, Moran argued there was no proof of criminal intent. The Court rejected both arguments and pointed out Moran’s own use of the term “extortion” (“And Mr. Moran said, ‘Call it extortion, call it what you will. We need $500,000, and we’ll accelerate the zoning. We’ll get you the zoning approvals you need and accelerate the process.'”)
The jury rejected Moran’s arguments in finding him guilty.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to consider two issues raised by Moran on appeal. First, did the trial judge err in refusing to instruct the jury that Moran could not be convicted of bribery unless the Commonwealth proved that he acted with criminal intent? Second, was the evidence presented sufficient to prove that Moran was guilty of bribery under the statute beyond a reasonable doubt because of inadequate proof that Moran acted with criminal intent?
This case is of importance to municipal officials who frequently find themselves in negotiations with developers over conditions of approval of subdivisions and land developments. These negotiations often involve public improvements or contributions to benefit the residents of the township and offset the impact of development. As in the Moran case, the municipal officials do not receive any direct benefit from imposition of these requirements on the developer. The Superior Court opinion did emphasize the fact that Mr. Moran himself referred to what he was doing as “call it extortion, call it what you will.”
We would hope to see some clarification of these important issues by the Supreme Court.
— Stu Cohen