Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

People v. Shirley

Supreme Court of California
360 P.2d 33 (1961)


Facts

Tressie Shirley (defendant) received welfare aid for herself and her children. Shirley was told repeatedly that she was obligated to keep the county’s welfare department updated on Shirley’s family status or income. Shirley told a social worker that her only income was her allotment from the welfare department, as well as earnings from two of her children, and that there were no other adults living in the home. Shirley was again told to keep the department informed about income and household members, and Shirley agreed to report any changes. The social worker visited Shirley’s home six months later and found Shirley’s husband there. Shortly thereafter, investigators from the district attorney’s office went to Shirley’s home and found her husband in bed. Shirley told the investigators that her husband had been living in her home for six months and that her husband had contributed about $800 during that time, though he was not the father of her children. Shirley admitted to knowing that she should have reported these changes to the welfare department. The department determined that Shirley had been overpaid $1,811 as a result of the unreported changes. Shirley was charged with grand theft by false pretenses. At trial, the jury was instructed that, under § 1508 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, a stepfather’s income should be considered when computing the welfare amount to be dispersed to a mother and her needy children. The jury was also told by the trial court that a man living in a home and acting as a mother’s spouse had the same obligations as that of a stepfather to the mother and her children. Shirley was convicted. The trial court issued an order denying a new trial, and Shirley appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Gibson, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 218,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.