With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the California Court of Appeal reaffirmed this analysis. 231 Cal.App.3d 1413, 1420 n. 1, 282 Cal.Rptr. 805 (1991) (“A requirement that the false statement or representation be made knowingly or with intent to deceive or defraud appears to be an element of the crime described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 10980 subdivision (c) ... but because the necessary mental state was not raised as an issue on appeal, we have no reason to so hold.”). Ferreira correctly asserts that both of the above statements are dicta, but the California Court of Appeal has specifically held that WIC section 10980(c)(2)’s predecessor statute, which contained language identical to the present statute, required proof of intent to defraud. People v. Faubus, 48 Cal.App.3d 1, 5, 121 Cal.Rptr. 167 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Thus, California caselaw indicates that all

A: holding that even where there are  contrary indications in the statutes legislative history we do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear
B: holding that because of the legislative history of welfare and institutions code section 11483 we conclude that an intent to defraud is also an ingredient of a violation of that statute
C: holding that determining legislative intent is a question of law
D: holding that although section 311023 of the texas government code states that courts may consider the legislative history of unambiguous statutes the legislative history of a statute cannot be used to alter the unambiguous meaning of a statute except for the rare instance in which it is used to show a typographical error
B.