## Facts

- Tressie Neal Shirley received county welfare aid for herself and her minor children for many years and was repeatedly told to report changes in household composition and income because they affected eligibility and payment amounts.
- On October 21, 1958, Shirley told a county social worker her only income was welfare payments plus occasional earnings of two children, and that no unrelated adults lived in the home; she again agreed to report any changes.
- In April 1959, a social worker and later investigators found evidence that a man (later her husband) had been living in the home.
- Shirley told investigators he had lived there for at least six months and had contributed money and support (including regular weekly amounts and help with a refrigerator), totaling about $800.
- Shirley admitted she knew she was required to report income and changes in the number of persons in the home.
- Shirley married the man near the end of the charged period; the welfare department recomputed her aid and determined she had been overpaid $1,811 between October 1, 1958 and April 30, 1959.
- A jury convicted Shirley of grand theft; the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation; Shirley appealed from the probation order and denial of a new-trial motion.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported grand theft by false pretenses based on Shirley’s statements and her promise to report changes allegedly made without intent to perform.
2. Whether an instruction effectively treating a nonmarital cohabitant as a “stepfather” whose income could be considered under Welfare and Institutions Code § 1508 was error requiring reversal.
3. Whether there was a fatal variance between an indictment alleging theft of county funds and proof that payments were made through the county welfare department.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the conviction and the orders granting probation and denying a new trial.
- The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Shirley made false representations and a false promise (a promise to report changes made without intent to keep it), inducing continued welfare payments and causing a loss.
- The trial court’s “stepfather-equivalence” instruction misstated the statute, but the error was harmless because the conviction rested on independent proof of false pretenses and unreported contributions.
- No fatal variance existed; the county was properly treated as the victim, and any technical discrepancy did not affect substantial rights.

## Legal Principles

- Grand theft by false pretenses may be proved by (1) a false representation of fact or a promise made without intent to perform, (2) intent to defraud, (3) reliance causing the victim to part with property, and (4) resulting loss.
- Fraudulent intent may be inferred from a defendant’s knowledge of a duty to disclose, affirmative misstatements about eligibility-related facts, and continued nondisclosure while benefits are received.
- Welfare and Institutions Code provisions authorizing consideration of a “stepfather’s” income may not be expanded by instruction or construction to include a nonmarital cohabitant.
- Under California Constitution article VI, section 4½, an instructional error does not require reversal absent a miscarriage of justice; a conviction may be affirmed where independent evidence supports guilt.
- A variance between pleading and proof is not reversible when it does not mislead the defendant or prejudice substantial rights and the alleged victim is adequately identified.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a grand theft conviction where a welfare recipient affirmatively misstated household status and effectively concealed a cohabitant’s financial contributions after promising to report changes, and it held that an erroneous instruction expanding a statute about stepfather income was harmless because the evidence independently established theft by false pretenses.


People v. Shirley, 55 Cal. 2d 521, 360 P.2d 33 (Cal. 1961)