stating that the general/specific statute rule “do[es] not purport to limit the People’s discretion to prosecute under a general statute that provides a sanction less severe than that called for under a specific statute”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the general/specific statute rule “do[es] not purport to limit the People’s discretion to prosecute under a general statute that provides a sanction less severe than that called for under a specific statute”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LUCAS, C. J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the judgment insofar as the majority holds the judgment of contempt under Penal Code section 11229 (the Red Light Abatement Law) must be annulled. (Maj. opn., ante,x at p. 1244 & fn. 11.) Without belaboring the issues further, I note simply that I dissent from the majority’s holding that on retrial, petitioners may be charged with only one count of contempt for each day on which they permitted multiple lewd acts to occur in violation of the injunction. Nor can L subscribe to the majority’s analysis concerning the “alternative sentence.”