# Mitchell v. Superior Court

> California Supreme Court · December 28, 1989 · 49 Cal. 3d 1230

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790850

## Case

- **Full name:** JAMES LLOYD MITCHELL Et Al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 28, 1989
- **Citations:** 49 Cal. 3d 1230; 265 Cal. Rptr. 144; 783 P.2d 731; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 2106
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Lucas
- **Judges:** Eagleson, Mosk, Lucas, Panelli
- **Cited by:** 69 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/9790850

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790850. Public record. Not legal advice.