Court Opinion

ID: 9558944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:19:19.419834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:40.452169
License: Public Domain

RICHARDSON, J.
I concur in the judgment and in the majority’s holding that “there is overwhelming evidence that by incorporating sec*510tion 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.