Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Asportation or Carrying Away Is a Necessary Element of the Offense of Kidnapping
![handle is hein.journals/stmlj4 and id is 127 raw text is: CASE NOTES
law and criticized HEW's reasoning.60 The facts differ since California
uses a statutory maximum standard of payment, while Texas uses a rat-
able reduction standard of payment.61 Furthermore, the California suit
was based upon § 602(a)(7)62 of the Social Security Act, while the Texas
suit was based upon § 602(a)(23)63 and the fourteenth amendment. The
court in Villa disagreed with HEW's contention that the example given
by the Supreme Court in a footnote in Rosado, which subtracted addi-
tional income from the standard of need rather than the level of bene-
fit,64 was mere dictum. It characterized the example as necessary to the
[Supreme] [C]ourt's interpretation of the 1967 amendment which
requires standards of need and statutory maximums to be in-
creased ... 65
While HEW approval of a -plan which subtracts income from the
standard of need rather than the level of benefit is significant, it is not
necessarily binding. The courts have not hesitated to overrule that
agency when it deems a ruling contrary to a statute or congressional
policy.
The instant case held that there was a conflict in the Social Security
Act and the budgeting procedure of subtracting an AFDC family's
income from its statutory maximum grant rather than its standard of
need when computing the amount of the grant. The court's inter-
pretation was based in part on its interpretation of legislative intent and
in part on permissive statements in HEW's rules and regulations.
Janice C. McCoy
CRIMINAL LAW-KIDNAPPING-ASPORTATION OR CARRYING AWAY Is
A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE OF KIDNAPPING. People v.
Adams, 192 N.W.2d 19 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
On October 18, 1965, several inmates of Jackson State Prison, includ-
ing Adams, were engaged in a conversation concerning their grievances
against the administration. A mixture of alcohol and barbiturates had
60 Villa v. Hall, 490 P.2d 1148, 1151 (Cal. 1971).
01 Under the Texas plan, the Department of Public Welfare determines a family's
standard of need according to its statewide guidelines. An adult is allowed $65 per month
for food, clothing and other essentials; each child under 18 is allowed $25 per month;
the maximum rent allowed is $50; and utilities are budgeted at $13. The standard of need
for a family of four children would be $228. The state provides a level of benefit of
75% of need (as of March, 1972). The maximum grant for a family of four would be $171.
(The same percentage level is applied to all AFDC families no matter what their size.)
62 Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(7) (1971).
63 Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(23) (1971). This section requires states to
adjust their standards of need to reflect changes in the cost of living.
64 Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 409 n.13, 90 S. Ct. 1207, 1216 n.13, 25 L. Ed.2d 442,
454 n.13 (1970).
65 Villa v. Hall, 490 P.2d 1148, 1152 (Cal. 1971).
1972]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/stmlj4&div=16&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Asportation or Carrying Away Is a Necessary Element of the Offense of Kidnapping
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most