# People v. Jenkins

> California Supreme Court · December 15, 1980 · 28 Cal. 3d 494

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558944

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARGIE JENKINS, Defendant and Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 15, 1980
- **Citations:** 28 Cal. 3d 494; 170 Cal. Rptr. 1; 620 P.2d 587; 1980 Cal. LEXIS 232
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Richardson
- **Judges:** Bird, Richardson
- **Cited by:** 114 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558944

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558944. Public record. Not legal advice.