California Court of Appeal

Conviction for receiving aid by misrepresentation and perjury is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendant could not be convicted of both misrepresentation and perjury arising from the same activities because the misrepresentation statute is a specific statute precluding prosecution under the general statute defining perjury; and 2) the evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant's misrepresentation arose in the context of a state assistance program, and thus her case was not subject to the general/specific exceptions as applied in People v. Jenkins.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/06/2008
• Published 11/06/2008

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• John Doyle, Compton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant., Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Lloyd G. Carter, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.