People v. Smith, Cr. 12028

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtROTH
Citation56 Cal.Rptr. 258,248 Cal.App.2d 134
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Yvonne SMITH, Defendant and Respondent.
Docket NumberCr. 12028
Decision Date26 January 1967

Page 258

56 Cal.Rptr. 258
248 Cal.App.2d 134
The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Yvonne SMITH, Defendant and Respondent.
Cr. 12028.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.
Jan. 26, 1967.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1967.
Hearing Denied March 22, 1967.

[248 Cal.App.2d 135] Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Evelle J. Younger, Dist. Atty., Harry Wood, Chief, Appellate Division, Robert J. Lord, Deputy Dist. Atty., and Keith Glazer, Deputy Dist. Atty., for appellant.

Erling J. Hovden, Public Defender, Harkjoon Paik, Deputy Public Defender, and James L. McCormick, Deputy Public Defender, for respondent.

ROTH, Presiding Justice.

On October 8, 1965, respondent Yvonne Smith was charged with three counts of

Page 259

felony perjury in violation of sections 118 of the Penal Code and section 1550 of the Welf. & Inst.Code (now §§ 11050 and 11054 of the Welf. & Inst.Code).

On January 19, 1966, she demurred to the information on the ground that she cannot be prosecuted via section 1150 of Welf. & Inst.Code cited in the information, under the general perjury statute of the Penal Code, since section 1563 of the Welf. & Inst.Code (now § 11265) applies specifically to the crimes charged and makes the same misdemeanors and not felonies.

On January 28, 1966, the trial court sustained the demurrer. The People refused to amend. Judgment dismissing the information was entered February 24, 1966.

Prior to the time of the alleged perjury, Mrs. Smith was receiving aid from Los Angeles County for the support of her two children. On April 1, 1963, October 17, 1963, and April 23, 1964, Mrs. Smith signed, under oath, as required by section 11265 of the Welf. & Inst.Code, 'Statements of Facts Relating to Eligibility for Aid to Needy Children,' bi-yearly redeterminations of eligibility required by [248 Cal.App.2d 136] the county. Included on each form was the statement that there was 'no unrelated adults living with the family.' The People contend that during this period, one Morris R. Johnson was in fact living with Mrs. Smith and her children, and that she therefore committed perjury in signing the redetermination statements.

The sole question on appeal is whether Mrs. Smith could be prosecuted for felony perjury under section 118 of the Penal Code and section 1550 of the Welf. & Inst.Code, now sections 11050 and 11054 of the Welf. & Inst.Code, or as respondent contends, only for violation of section 1563 of the Welf. & Inst.Code, now section 11265 of that code.

Section 11265 of the Welf. & Inst.Code deals specifically with annual redeterminations of eligibility for aid to needy children, and concludes: 'Any person signing such certificate who willfully states therein any material matter which he knows to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor.'

Section 1550 of the Welf. & Inst.Code, repealed effective May 21, 1963, operative January 1, 1964, reenacted in 1965 as sections 11050 and 11054 without substantial change, but omitting provisions for an oath, death generally with all applications for aid in behalf of a needy...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Jenkins, Cr. 21610
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 15, 1980
    ...pertaining to redetermination certificates and thus precluded prosecutions for perjury for any misstatements. (People v. Smith (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 134, 56 Cal.Rptr. In 1971, the Legislature deleted the language relied upon in Smith. (Sen. Bill No. 796 (1971 Reg. Sess.); Stats. 1971, ch. 5......
  • People v. Barrowclough, Cr. 23209
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 9, 1974
    ...1 Cal.3d Page 854 475, 82 Cal.Rptr. 724, 462 P.2d 580; People v. Swann, 213 Cal.App.2d 447, 28 Cal.Rptr. 830; and People v. Smith, 248 Cal.App.2d 134, 56 Cal.Rptr. Essentially defendant's position is that Vehicle Code section 20, violation of which is a misdemeanor (VEH.CODE S 40000.5 )5, i......
  • People v. Gilbert, Cr. 13870
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 24, 1968
    ...make it clear that the Legislature intended to remove this type of violation from the general law. In the case of People v. Smith, 248 Cal.App.2d 134, 56 Cal.Rptr. 258, the defendant was charged with three counts of felony perjury in violation of section 118 of the Penal Code and section 15......
  • People v. Kreiling, Cr. 13651
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 29, 1968
    ...for burglary (Pen.Code, § 459) and not for violating the credit card statute (Pen.Code, § 484a, subsec. 6). In People v. Smith (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 134, 56 Cal.Rptr. 258, the defendant was prosecuted [259 Cal.App.2d 704] under general statutes proscribing prejury (Pen.Code, § 118) and a st......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT