Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michael Lynne Thompson and Eric Abner Hutchins met while incarcerated and agreed to start a wildfire management company, Mann Ranch, after their release. Hutchins was paroled in June 2019 and Thompson in August 2019; they ran the business from an office in Lakeport, California. In March 2020 an Economic Injury and Disaster Loan (EIDL) application was filed with the Small Business Administration (SBA) in Mann Ranch's name listing both men as equal owners, reporting $200,000 in prior-year income, and answering 'yes' to a question about criminal history or parole. The SBA denied that application in June 2020, and one day later a second application listed Thompson as sole owner, claimed $1.5 million in prior revenue, and falsely answered 'no' to the criminal-history question. A separate May 2020 application for an 'agricultural business,' Three Dragons, listed Thompson as a 60 percent owner and likewise answered 'no' to the criminal-history question under penalty of perjury.
The Lake County District Attorney charged Thompson with three counts of felony perjury (counts 1–3) and 12 counts of making false statements to obtain unemployment benefits (counts 4–15); during trial the court dismissed counts 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 and amended count 15 to grand theft. Count 2 alleged that on June 26, 2020, Thompson declared under penalty of perjury that he had not been on parole within five years when he was. After Hutchins pleaded guilty in June 2024, Thompson waived a jury, and a 10-day bench trial began in September 2024. The court found Thompson not guilty of personally committing perjury on count 2 but guilty of aiding and abetting perjury, and also guilty of counts 1, 4, 7, 8, 12, and 15. At sentencing in April 2025 the court struck his prior violent felony conviction under section 1385 and Romero and imposed five years four months in state prison.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. On the substantial-evidence challenge, the court held that under Penal Code section 118, subdivision (a), a person aids and abets perjury by acting with knowledge of the unlawful purpose and intent to facilitate the offense. The trial court had found the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Thompson personally filed the June application, but proved he aided and abetted Hutchins by preparing paperwork while knowing it used false information. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, the appellate court found substantial evidence that Thompson knowingly assisted the submission: he admitted completing the paperwork for the second application, acknowledged the penalty-of-perjury statement, and conceded he answered the criminal-history question untruthfully. The court also relied on the nearly identical Three Dragons application Thompson conceded making in May 2020 to infer he knew the June application contained false information.
The court also rejected the Pitchess claim. After independently reviewing the sealed in camera transcript, it concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no discoverable material in the investigators' personnel files; the trial court had stated for the record what documents it examined, questioned the custodian of records about completeness, and found nothing responsive to disclose.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant may be convicted of perjury as an aider and abettor even when the prosecution does not prove he personally filed the false document, if substantial evidence shows he knowingly assisted the submission.
- Admissions to investigators, acknowledgment of a penalty-of-perjury statement, and a prior similar fraudulent application can together support an inference of knowledge.
- On a substantial-evidence challenge, the appellate court presumes every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence.
- A Pitchess in camera review must be recorded adequately—by stating what documents were examined and questioning the custodian—to permit meaningful appellate review.
- The appellate court will independently review the sealed Pitchess record for abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision illustrates that aider-and-abettor perjury liability can rest on preparatory acts and circumstantial evidence rather than personal filing, a recurring issue in pandemic-relief fraud prosecutions where defendants blame codefendants, and it shows how appellate courts weigh a defendant's own inconsistent statements.
It also reaffirms the procedural safeguards for Pitchess hearings: an adequate record of the in camera review and independent appellate scrutiny of the sealed transcript.