California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Siko, 248 Cal.Rptr. 110, 45 Cal.3d 820, 755 P.2d 294 (Cal. 1988):
We start with the fact, which the People concede, that subdivision (c) nowhere expresses a legislative intent to repeal the prohibition of double punishment for violations based on the "same act or omission" found in section 654. As a general rule of statutory construction, of course, repeal by implication is disfavored. (In re White (1969) 1 Cal.3d 207, 212, 81 Cal.Rptr. 780, 460 P.2d 980.) Such repeal is particularly disfavored when, as here, the statute allegedly repealed expresses a legal principle that has been a part of our penal jurisprudence for over a century. (People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 913-914, 184 Cal.Rptr. 165, 647 P.2d 569.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.