People v. Shirley

• Decision Date: 09 March 1961
• Docket Number: Cr. 6729
• Citation: 360 P.2d 33,55 Cal.2d 521,11 Cal.Rptr. 537,92 A.L.R.2d 413
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 360 P.2d 33, 92 A.L.R.2d 413 PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ressie Neal SHIRLEY, Defendant and Appellant. *

Page 537

11 Cal.Rptr. 537

55 Cal.2d 521, 360 P.2d 33, 92 A.L.R.2d 413

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ressie Neal SHIRLEY, Defendant and Appellant. ^*

Cr. 6729.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

March 9, 1961.

J. M. Lopes, Visalia, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., and S. Clark Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

GIBSON, Chief Justice.

After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of grand theft under an indictment charging that she unlawfully took $1,811 of funds of Tulare County between October 1, 1958, and April 30, 1959. Imposition of sentence was suspended for three years, and she was granted probation. She has appealed from the order granting probation and from an order denying a new trial. Pen.Code, § 1237.

Defendant received welfare aid for herself and minor children periodically commencing in 1948. She was informed repeatedly that it was her duty to keep the county welfare department advised of any changes in the family status or income and that anyone moving into or out of the house would affect her welfare budget. On October 21, 1958, defendant reported to a county social worker that her only income was the money she received from the welfare department, plus the occasional earnings of two of her children, and that there were no unrelated adults living with the family. She was again advised of her duty to keep the welfare department informed regarding income and household members, and she agreed to report any change in income or other financial conditions.

The social worker visited defendant at her home on April 14, 1959, and found a Mr. Shirley there, fully clothed but wearing bedroom slippers. Two days later, at the request of the welfare department, investigators from the district attorney's office called at defendant's home about 2:30 a. m. and found Shirley in bed in her bedroom. Defendant told the investigators that Shirley had been living in her home for at least six months and that during this time he had averaged spending $20 a week for household expenses and in addition had given her $10 a week in cash. Thus his total contributions during that period were approximately $800. She said that he had also helped with payments on a refrigerator. She admitted knowing that she should report all income received by her and any changes in the number of persons in the home. On April 23, 1959, she reported to the welfare department that she had married Shirley on the previous day. The department recomputed defendant's budget for the period in question and determined that she had been overpaid $1,811.

The evidence is sufficient to support the implied findings of the jury that defendant made false representations of fact with intent to defraud and that, when she promised to report any change in her household and financial condition, she had no intention of keeping her promise. It is also clear that the welfare payments were made in reliance upon the false representations and that the county was defrauded.

The jury was instructed, pursuant to section 1508 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, that where a needy child lives with his mother and stepfather, the amount of the grant shall be computed after consideration is given to the income of the stepfather and that a stepfather is bound to support, if able to do so, his wife's children if without support from such stepfather they would be needy children eligible for aid. ¹ The jury was also told that under regulations of the State Board of Social Welfare a stepfather living in the home is responsible for the support of the mother of a needy child unless incapacitated and unable to support, that a man living in the home assuming the role of spouse has the same responsibility as that of a stepfather for the mother and the needy children, and that the income of a stepfather or other man assuming the role of spouse that is to be used in determining his ability to contribute is his take-home pay plus his income from all other sources except his wife's earnings.

The regulations set forth in the instructions are designed to assist welfare workers in the determination of need, which is one requirement of eligibility for assistance. The aid to needy children program established by sections 1500 et seq. of the Welfare and Institutions Code is coordinated with the federal program under which federal funds are made available to states having an approved plan for aid to needy children. Merced County v. Dept. of Social Welfare, 148 Cal.App.2d 540, 541, 307 P.2d 46. Under both the state and federal laws a needy child is defined as a needy person under the age of 18 years who has been deprived of parental support. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1500; 42 U.S.C.A. § 606(a). The federal act requires the state plan to provide that the state agency, in determining need, shall take into consideration any other income and resources of a child claiming aid. 42 U.S.C.A. § 602(a) (7). The administration of the public assistance programs, including aid to needy children, presents many complex problems. See 42 Cal.L.Rev. 458; 45 Cal.L.Rev. 241. Under the Welfare and Institutions Code the State Board of Social Welfare has the duty of enacting rules and regulations for administering these programs and is authorized to adopt regulations that are consistent with law and reasonably necessary for the administration of welfare. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 103, 103.1, 1560, 2140, 3075.

Under its express terms the provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code are to be administered fairly, with due consideration not only for the needs of applicants but also for the safeguarding of public funds. Welf. & Inst.Code, § 103.3. If children are not in need, they are obviously not eligible for assistance regardless of who is paying for their support. As we have seen, the welfare department is authorized by section 1508 of the code to consider the income of a stepfather in computing the amount of aid to be granted, and it is unlikely that the financial need of a child will vary substantially depending upon the legality of the relationship between his mother and a man living in the home and assuming the role of spouse. It is reasonable to infer that a man assuming the role of spouse will contribute to the support of the mother and her needy child and will thus reduce their need, but it would be difficult and perhaps impossible for the department to ascertain the amount of contributions in each case. A practical solution of the difficulty is offered by the regulations which authorize the department to consider the income of such a man in the same manner as it would consider that of a stepfather. A decision declaring the regulations invalid would place a premium upon an illegal relationship and operate as a deterrent to marriage of the mother and the man assuming the role of spouse. The regulations are in accord with the primary purpose of the program, which is to aid needy children, and they are valid insofar as they direct the welfare department, in determining the amount of aid to be granted, to consider the man's income without regard to the existence of a lawful marriage.

To the extent that the instructions may have indicated that a man assuming the role of spouse, although not married, had an obligation to support the mother and her children, they went beyond the issues and were erroneous. It does not appear, however, how the jurors could have been misled, since the question of such a man's liability for support had no bearing on whether defendant was guilty of theft by false pretenses, and the jurors were fully informed of the elements of that offense which they must find in order to return a verdict of guilty.

Defendant further contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Shirley's income during the months in question. Testimony that Shirley was employed during this period was admitted without objection. Later payroll records showing that during the period he earned several thousand dollars were introduced over objection. Evidence of the amount of his earnings was relevant in view of the regulations calling for consideration by the welfare department of the income of a man assuming the role of spouse. It had a bearing on defendant's intent in making the misrepresentations and tended to corroborate her admission that Shirley had made regular contributions for the support of herself and her children.

The evidence of defendant's guilt is clear and convincing, and we are satisfied that there was no miscarriage of justice. Cal. Const., art. VI, § 4 1/2.

The orders granting probation and denying a new trial are affirmed.

TRAYNOR, SCHAUER, McCOMB and WHITE, JJ., concur.

PETERS, Justice (dissenting).

I dissent.

The conviction in this case was based, in part at least, on erroneous instructions to the jury and on inadmissible evidence. The trial court instructed the jury that, under the regulations of the Board of Social Welfare, a man living in a home assuming the role of spouse, even though not married, has the same legal responsibility as that of a stepfather to the mother of needy children, and that the income of such a man that is to be used in determining his ability to contribute to their support, is his takehome pay plus his income from all other sources.

The majority admit that the 'legal responsibility' portion of this instruction was erroneous, but say it was not prejudicial, and then uphold the validity of the last part of the instruction. To that extent, it is held, the regulation is valid. Based on this ruling, the majority then hold that evidence of the income of the man assuming the role of spouse, even though not married, was admissible because of the 'regulations calling for consideration by the welfare department of the income of a man assuming the role of spouse.'

In my opinion the challenged regulations are void in their entirety, instructions based upon them were erroneous, and evidence was...