Swann-Gilbert rule in California

2016While waiting in traffic, Dillard and Sandoval got into an argument after Sandoval accused Dillard of looking at other women. 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 Dillard refers to the rule as the "Swann-Gilbert rule." (People v. Gilbert (1969) 1 Cal.3d 475, 479 ; People v. Swann (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 447, 449 .) The California Supreme Court has referred to this rule as the "Williamson rule." (People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 86 , citing In re Williamson, supra, 43 Cal.2d at p. 654 .) We do so as well, to conform our analysis of the issue to the Sup

2015You’re going to be hurting.” Given the tenor of Hathcox’s messages, Cheryl reasonably understood “kick [her] husband’s ass” to mean physically beat up, and not one of the less threatening meanings suggested by Hathcox. 6 In People v. York (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1503 , cited by Hathcox, this rule was referred to as the “Swann-Gilbert rule.” (Ibid., citing People v. Gilbert (1969) 1 Cal.3d 475, 479 ; People v. Swann (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 447, 449 .) More recently, the California Supreme Court has recognized it as the “Williamson rule.” (People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 86 (Murphy), ci

2016While waiting in traffic, Dillard and Sandoval got into an argument after Sandoval accused Dillard of looking at other women. 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 Dillard refers to the rule as the "Swann-Gilbert rule." (People v. Gilbert (1969) 1 Cal.3d 475, 479 ; People v. Swann (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 447, 449 .) The California Supreme Court has referred to this rule as the "Williamson rule." (People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 86 , citing In re Williamson, supra, 43 Cal.2d at p. 654 .) We do so as well, to conform our analysis of the issue to the Sup

2015You’re going to be hurting.” Given the tenor of Hathcox’s messages, Cheryl reasonably understood “kick [her] husband’s ass” to mean physically beat up, and not one of the less threatening meanings suggested by Hathcox. 6 In People v. York (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1503 , cited by Hathcox, this rule was referred to as the “Swann-Gilbert rule.” (Ibid., citing People v. Gilbert (1969) 1 Cal.3d 475, 479 ; People v. Swann (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 447, 449 .) More recently, the California Supreme Court has recognized it as the “Williamson rule.” (People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 86 (Murphy), ci

2016While waiting in traffic, Dillard and Sandoval got into an argument after Sandoval accused Dillard of looking at other women. 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 Dillard refers to the rule as the "Swann-Gilbert rule." (People v. Gilbert (1969) 1 Cal.3d 475, 479 ; People v. Swann (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 447, 449 .) The California Supreme Court has referred to this rule as the "Williamson rule." (People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 86 , citing In re Williamson, supra, 43 Cal.2d at p. 654 .) We do so as well, to conform our analysis of the issue to the Sup

2015You’re going to be hurting.” Given the tenor of Hathcox’s messages, Cheryl reasonably understood “kick [her] husband’s ass” to mean physically beat up, and not one of the less threatening meanings suggested by Hathcox. 6 In People v. York (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1503 , cited by Hathcox, this rule was referred to as the “Swann-Gilbert rule.” (Ibid., citing People v. Gilbert (1969) 1 Cal.3d 475, 479 ; People v. Swann (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 447, 449 .) More recently, the California Supreme Court has recognized it as the “Williamson rule.” (People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 86 (Murphy), ci

1998(Cf. People v. Coronado (1995) 12 Cal.4th 145, 153-154 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 77 , 906 P.2d 1232 ].) Under the Swann-Gilbert rule, prosecution under the generalized statutes is barred when a specific law is intended by the Legislature for a given factual situation.

1998(Cf. People v. Coronado (1995) 12 Cal.4th 145, 153-154 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 77 , 906 P.2d 1232 ].) Under the Swann-Gilbert rule, prosecution under the generalized statutes is barred when a specific law is intended by the Legislature for a given factual situation.

1998(See In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 537 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 317 , 601 P.2d 549 ].) For this reason, we do not conclude the Legislature voiced an *1508 intention to override application of the Swann-Gilbert rule in its passage of section 653f, subdivision (d).

1998(See In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 537 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 317 , 601 P.2d 549 ].) For this reason, we do not conclude the Legislature voiced an *1508 intention to override application of the Swann-Gilbert rule in its passage of section 653f, subdivision (d).

1998(See, e.g., People v. Molina (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 221, 227-232 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 736 ] [fraudulent application for driver’s license can be prosecuted under either perjury statute or Vehicle Code as all three tests set out in People v. Jenkins (1980) 28 Cal.3d 494, 501-505 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 620 P.2d 587 ] were met].) Under the Swann-Gilbert rule, prosecution under the generalized statutes is barred when a specific law is intended by the Legislature for a given factual situation.

1998(See, e.g., People v. Molina (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 221, 227-232 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 736 ] [fraudulent application for driver’s license can be prosecuted under either perjury statute or Vehicle Code as all three tests set out in People v. Jenkins (1980) 28 Cal.3d 494, 501-505 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 620 P.2d 587 ] were met].) Under the Swann-Gilbert rule, prosecution under the generalized statutes is barred when a specific law is intended by the Legislature for a given factual situation.

1998(See, e.g., People v. Molina (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 221, 227-232 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 736 ] [fraudulent application for driver’s license can be prosecuted under either perjury statute or Vehicle Code as all three tests set out in People v. Jenkins (1980) 28 Cal.3d 494, 501-505 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 620 P.2d 587 ] were met].) Under the Swann-Gilbert rule, prosecution under the generalized statutes is barred when a specific law is intended by the Legislature for a given factual situation.

1998(See, e.g., People v. Molina (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 221, 227-232 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 736 ] [fraudulent application for driver’s license can be prosecuted under either perjury statute or Vehicle Code as all three tests set out in People v. Jenkins (1980) 28 Cal.3d 494, 501-505 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 620 P.2d 587 ] were met].) Under the Swann-Gilbert rule, prosecution under the generalized statutes is barred when a specific law is intended by the Legislature for a given factual situation.

1992III In a related contention, defendants argue Penal Code section 190.3 “provides a penalty phase discovery procedure separate and apart from normal discovery procedures” and notes, “[a] settled rule of statutory construction precludes prosecution under a general statute when a more specific one describes the conduct involved.” 8 (Finn v. Superior Court (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 268, 271 [ 202 Cal.Rptr. 732 ]; see 1 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (2d ed. 1988) Introduction to Crimes, § 62, p. 80; People v. Gilbert (1969) 1 Cal.3d 475 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 462 P.2d 580 ]; People v. Swann (1963)

1992III In a related contention, defendants argue Penal Code section 190.3 “provides a penalty phase discovery procedure separate and apart from normal discovery procedures” and notes, “[a] settled rule of statutory construction precludes prosecution under a general statute when a more specific one describes the conduct involved.” 8 (Finn v. Superior Court (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 268, 271 [ 202 Cal.Rptr. 732 ]; see 1 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (2d ed. 1988) Introduction to Crimes, § 62, p. 80; People v. Gilbert (1969) 1 Cal.3d 475 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 462 P.2d 580 ]; People v. Swann (1963)

1977Petitioner relies on the so-called Swann-Gilbert rule (People v. Swann, 213 Cal.App.2d 447 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 830 ]; People v. Gilbert, 1 Cal.3d 475 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 462 P.2d 580 ]) that special statutes supplant general statutes which cover the same subject matter. 1 Whether such statutes overlap is basically a matter of legislative intent. “. . . a special statute does not supplant a general statute unless all of the elements of the general statute are included in the special statute [citations].” (Italics in original.) (People v. Raster, 16 Cal.3d 690, 694 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 153 , 548 P.2d 353

1977Petitioner relies on the so-called Swann-Gilbert rule (People v. Swann, 213 Cal.App.2d 447 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 830 ]; People v. Gilbert, 1 Cal.3d 475 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 462 P.2d 580 ]) that special statutes supplant general statutes which cover the same subject matter. 1 Whether such statutes overlap is basically a matter of legislative intent. “. . . a special statute does not supplant a general statute unless all of the elements of the general statute are included in the special statute [citations].” (Italics in original.) (People v. Raster, 16 Cal.3d 690, 694 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 153 , 548 P.2d 353