stating that the general/specific statute rule applies “[i]f it appears from the entire context that a violation of the ‘special’ statute will necessarily or commonly result in a violation of the ‘general’ statute”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the general/specific statute rule applies “[i]f it appears from the entire context that a violation of the ‘special’ statute will necessarily or commonly result in a violation of the ‘general’ statute”
- stating that a strict elements test is “incomplete” for determining whether the general/specifie statute rule applies
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RICHARDSON, J.
I concur in the judgment and in the majority’s holding that “there is overwhelming evidence that by incorporating sec *510 tion 118 into the AFDC program via sections 11054 and 11265, the Legislature intended to permit prosecutions for AFDC fraud to proceed either under section 11483 or section 118.” (Ante, p. 509.)
In view of the clear legislative intent to allow a perjury prosecution here, it is unnecessary to discuss application of the rule of construction that “specific statutes preclude a prosecution for a general crime...” {ibid.), and I do not join in the majority’s extended treatment of that issue.
Clark, J., concurred.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied January 14, 1981.